ISLAMABAD: Remarking on the Supreme Court’s suo motu notice on the extraordinary political situation, the Chief Justice said that the formation of caretaker government has been put on hold due to this case.
The focus of the court is only on the rolling of the Deputy Speaker, the court’s priority is to decide only on this point, the court does not interfere in matters of state and foreign policy, the court only has to review the constitutional status of the measures, court policy Do not want to get involved in the investigation, ask all parties to focus on this point.
A five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan is hearing the suo motu notice on the current constitutional situation in the country. The female lawyer pleaded to be a party and said that the whole issue due to which she should be called, Asad Majeed wrote a letter, they should be called. On this, the Chief Justice said that they are not listening to the petitions of the parties, you sit down, we have to listen to the lawyers of the political parties.
Giving arguments, Raza Rabbani said that the statement of the Election Commission came that elections are not possible in 3 months. On which the Chief Justice said that we also want a speedy decision but we will hear the position of all parties.
Raza Rabbani said that the court has to see to what extent the parliamentary proceedings are exempt, whatever happened can be termed as civilian martial law, the system has prepared its own alternative which is unconstitutional, no confidence on March 28. The motion was passed, but the hearing was adjourned. The Deputy Speaker read out the ruling and found the members guilty of violating Article 5.
Giving arguments, Raza Rabbani said that the Deputy Speaker did not even announce that detailed rolling would be issued. The Deputy Speaker did not say on what basis the rolling was done. The Deputy Speaker made his oral rolling ineffective by giving written rolling.
Raza Rabbani told the court that the rolling of the Deputy Speaker is unconstitutional. The constitution provides for removal of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister cannot dissolve the Assemblies if he enters Parliament. The court has to see to what extent the parliamentary proceedings are exempted.
Arguments further said that there is no connection between violation of Article 5 and rolling, the Deputy Speaker interpreted Article 5 and applied it to the members, the Speaker’s rolling can be reviewed under Article 95 (2). Yes, the Prime Minister spoke of 3 options in his statement, the Establishment denied the talk of 3 options, the minutes and letter of the National Security Committee should be called, the court should declare the rolling of the Speaker null and void and restore the Assembly.
PML-N lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan in his arguments said that no-confidence motion was filed under sub-clause one of article 95, no-confidence motion was signed by 152 members and no-confidence motion was moved by 161 members. With the support of 161 members, the Speaker allowed the no-confidence motion. Further action on the no-confidence motion was adjourned till March 31.
Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan said that under Rule 37, the no-confidence motion was to be debated on March 31, the resolution was not debated on March 31, the no-confidence motion was to be voted on April 3. Parliament is against democracy. Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked when the no-confidence motion should be filed. It is in the rules, not in the constitution. Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan said that the rules have also been made under the constitution.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar inquired that 20 per cent members are required for approval of motion, 20 per cent approval but what will happen if majority present in the house opposes? The lawyer said that if a no-confidence motion is introduced, then voting on it is necessary. The Chief Justice said that the Constitution could not be made ineffective by the Rules, the motion for motion of no confidence was allowed in the Rules.
Lawyer Makhdoom Ali argued that only the House can decide whether the Prime Minister will remain or not. Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that the real question was only the rolling of the Deputy Speaker. Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan said that the rolling of the Speaker is a violation of the Constitution. On this, Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked whether the court could review the rolling of the Deputy Speaker. Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan said that unconstitutional rolling can be reviewed by the court, one person cannot sideline the majority of the House. Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that at present the court only wants to look into constitutional matters. Makhdoom Ali Khan said that the court can take briefing from sensitive agencies if it wants.
Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial while giving remarks said that they want to compare all the motions, cannot interfere in the proceedings of the parliament, there is immense respect for the parliament, in the past the court has been interfering in the proceedings of the parliament on unconstitutional steps. The hearing cannot be completed. The court adjourned the hearing till tomorrow.
