— SC bench gives unanimous verdict
— All decisions by PM, President since April 3 declared void
ISLAMABAD: In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the National Assembly deputy speaker’s ruling to dismiss the no-confidence motion and subsequent dissolution of the lower house by the president on the PM’s advice were contrary to the law and Constitution.
The court has also ordered to reinstate the National Assembly and summon its session at 10.30am on Saturday (April 9) to hold voting on no-trust motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
A five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and included Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan announced the verdict, which was reserved earlier in the day.
The apex court declared that NA deputy speaker’s ruling to be contrary to Constitution and the law and of no legal effect.
The top court ruled that the President Arif Avli’s order to dissolve the Assembly was contrary to the Constitution and of no legal effect, and it is hereby set aside. The SC declared that all actions, acts or proceedings initiated, done or taken by reason of, or to give effect to, the president’s order are of no legal effect and are hereby quashed.
The apex court said in the verdict that the government cannot bar any lawmaker from attending the NA session. Following the top court’s order, the federal cabinet has also been restored.
The top court had also summoned the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) officials including its secretary.
Earlier, during a hearing of the case, CJP Bandial, after consultation with fellow judges, observed that it was clear that the ruling of the deputy speaker to dismiss the no-confidence motion submitted against the prime minister was “wrong”.
The chief justice remarked that there would be no stability in the country even after the restoration of the National Assembly that had been dissolved as a result of the ruling.
The court retired for a 15 minutes break. The CJP said after the break the court will touch upon salient features of the Constitution which include democracy and the parliamentary form of system.
Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Jawed Khan argued that everyone needed to be loyal to the state. He said that he is not defending the ruling. “However, I think new elections are the only solution,” he added.
‘Parliament should be restored’: Shehbaz
Meanwhile, when Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Shehbaz Sharif was called to the rostrum, he said that if the court acknowledges that the ruling of the deputy speaker was “erroneous”, then it should restore Parliament.
Shehbaz further highlighted that if the deputy speaker’s move was unconstitutional then decisions taken by PM Imran Khan with the help of President Arif Alvi are also “insignificant”, adding that the SC’s statement also hints at no assembly has being dissolved.
“The no-confidence motion against PM Imran Khan will automatically be restored once the apex court rules out the ruling of the deputy speaker,” he said.
Calling the ruling of the deputy speaker “unconstitutional and illegal”, the PML-N leader said that voting was to be held on April 3 and “constituencies cannot be dissolved during the proceedings.”
He highlighted that several government allies and MNAs joined the Opposition, assuring the five-member bench that the joint Opposition will protect the Constitution of Pakistan.
CJP Bandial said that the proceedings of the court are being held under Article 184 (3) as this is a public interest case.
Shehbaz further added that political stability is inter-connected with the Constitution of Pakistan.
During the cross-questioning session, Justice Mandokhel asked Shehbaz that the Opposition has been demanding fresh elections and now that they have the opportunity, why are they against it?
Replying to his question, Shehbaz said that the election has been “stolen” and laws of the Constitution have been “violated”; to which Justice Mandokhel said that all laws that have been violated will be restored.
‘Want to bring electoral reforms’: Bilawal
PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari told the five-member bench that the Opposition wants to bring electoral reforms by forming a government.
“Forming a government for our benefits is not our priority,” he stated. Replying to CJP’s question regarding a bill on electoral reforms, Bilawal said that a bill on electoral reforms is already drafted.
He further said that the “unconstitutional” ruling of the deputy speaker raises questions regarding the country’s democracy.
CJP Bandial further said that the judges acknowledge the three generations of the Bhutto family have sacrificed for the survival of democracy; however, he added that the judges should be allowed to issue the verdict strictly in line with the Constitution.
AGP asks for in-camera briefing on NSC meeting’s minutes
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan apprised the top court that the leave was granted to move the no-trust motion against the prime minister on March 28 by the Lower House.
The attorney general maintained that the military leadership was present in the National Security Committee (NSC ) meeting, adding that the participants of the meeting were briefed on “very sensitive issues”.
He maintained that he could not give his arguments over the minutes of the NSC meeting in open court. He, however, offered to give an in-camera briefing to the court on the minutes of the NSC meeting.
Continuing his arguments, he said there were 161 MNAs in the assembly when the leave was granted on March 28, adding that “172 lawmakers are required for the no-confidence motion to succeed.”
He maintained that the no-confidence had already been dismissed on March 28.
AGP not willing to defend deputy speaker’s ruling
During the hearing, AGP Khalid Jawed Khan excused himself from defending NA Deputy Speaker Qasim Khan Suri’s April 3 ruling.
Khalid Jawed Khan argued that his focus is on new elections in the country. Those who have been dubbing the assembly as selected for the past four years now wanted to become the prime minister of the same assembly, he added.
Meanwhile, Jamal Khan Mandokhail noted that it seemed that the speaker issued the ruling considering himself above all others.
Charter of economy
PML-N President and Leader of the Opposition Shehbaz Sharif was also called to the rostrum by the top court. Shehbaz said the Constitution was trampled multiple times in the history of Pakistan and the absence of penalization emboldened others and things reached the present stage.
He urged the SC to restore parliament and let it hold the vote of no-confidence. He also urged political parties to come together and sign a charter of the economy.
Justice Mandokhel said the opposition wanted fresh elections from day one. “It’s not about elections, but the abrogation of the Constitution,” Shehbaz responded. “We will consult the opposition on electoral reforms for transparent elections,” the PML-N chief said, adding that measures will be taken to provide relief to the masses.
The CJ said the court will decide the case on merit, not allegations. “Who hurled allegations of treason must need to prove them,” he added.
CJ Bandial also listened to PPP Chairperson Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari in the court. Bilawal said the opposition wanted to bring electoral reforms before the next elections. “Whatever your suggestions for reforms in the Senate are…bring them to the court,” CJ Bandial told Bilawal.
‘Speaker can circumvent law to save Pakistan’
At the outset of the hearing, PM Imran’s counsel Imtiaz Siddiqui argued that the scrutiny of parliamentary proceedings was beyond the mandate of the judiciary. “The court should ask parliament to clean up its mess,” he added.
CJ Bandial said the premier left the country in a lurch by announcing snap elections in 90 days and added that, according to the petitioners, the speaker could not have ruled before March 28 before leave was granted for the no-trust motion to be moved.
“What will you say on this,” Justice Bandial asked.
The PM’s counsel added that the opposition did not object to the deputy speaker chairing the session. “The deputy speaker [Qasim Suri] used his mind to come on a decision he considered better,” the lawyer said, adding that the speaker was not answerable to the court.
CJ Bandial said the court will review to what extent the proceedings were protected under Article 69.
The lawyer said if the speaker had knowledge of a foreign-backed regime-change plot or a threat to national security then he could circumvent the law to “save the country”. The speaker made a “perfect decision in accordance with his oath”, he said, asserting that it was an “internal parliamentary matter”.
“If you read Article 69 with Article 127 then you will see that parliamentary proceedings are completely protected,” the lawyer said, adding that the top court could not interfere in parliament.
Justice Munib Akhtar said the court was not bound to follow the decision that was referred to by the counsel. The lawyer said, “With due respect, you [five-member bench] are bound to follow the decisions of a seven-member bench.” The verdicts that were being alluded to only had observations and the court was not bound to follow “observations in verdicts,” Justice Munib added.
PM’s lawyer Siddiqui said the speaker made the National Security Committee meeting the basis of his decision. “Did the speaker have some material [to prove conspiracy] to reach this decision,” the CJ asked. “Was it based on good faith,” he further asked.
Justice Bandial asked, “When did the deputy speaker receive the minutes of the NSC.” This PM’s counsel expressed ignorance. “Then kindly don’t comment on things you don’t know,” the CJ rebuked.
According to the counsel, the speaker had the relevant material on the basis of which he ruled against the no-trust vote, the CJ said. “The PM breached Article 58…what will be the consequences,” he asked.
The speaker had no issue about voting on March 28 but on the day of voting, April 3, he gave the ruling to dismiss the motion. “Why didn’t he reject it on March 28,” the judge asked. “If the assembly was not dissolved, the house could have rolled back the ruling of the speaker,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan added.
“The PM took advantage of the situation and dissolved the National Assembly,” Justice Ahsan added.
After the conclusion of arguments by Siddiqui, Naeem Bukhari, the counsel representing the deputy speaker, started giving arguments.
‘Rules to subvert constitutional process’
After a short break, the court resumed the proceedings again. Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel said the ruling contained the signature of NA Speaker Asad Qaiser. Bukhari said he was still the speaker of the assembly. He added that the tabling of the no-confidence motion did mean that it could not be rejected. “The courts also dismiss pleas after entertaining them,” he argued.
Justice Mandokhel said Article 95 has a constitutional mandate. “Can the deputy speaker dissent from the constitutional mandate,” he asked. “If a no-trust motion is part of the agenda then does it not mean that the voting will take place,” Justice Mandokhel further asked. The SC judge wondered whether rules could be used to subvert a constitutional process. “Can there be proceedings for dissenting from the constitutional process,” he asked.
Justice Mandokhel said the parliamentary proceedings that resulted in the dismissal of the motion hardly lasted a few minutes. “Shouldn’t the opposition have gotten a chance to speak on point of order,” he questioned.
He further said the ruling was given by the deputy speaker but it was signed by the speaker. “The minutes of the parliamentary national security committee does not show the presence of the deputy speaker in the huddle,” he added. The deputy speaker was there, the counsel argued.
Justice Munib Akhtar said it was likely that some members of the house wouldn’t be satisfied with the ruling of the speaker. “Voting on the no-confidence motion is a constitutional requirement,” he added.
Justice Mandokhel said it seemed that the deputy speaker was given a “written ruling which he could read” in the house to dismiss the motion. “The deputy speaker read the name of Speaker Asad Qaiser at the end of the ruling,” the judge added.
The justice further said Fawad Chaudhry had asked for the legality of the no-trust motion. “There were elected lawmakers in the house,” he said, asking, “Whether giving a ruling against the will of the public representatives beyond parliamentary proceedings.”
“Whatever happened inside parliament is protected by the Constitution,” Bukhari asserted. He added that the court could not review the ruling.
Justice Bandial said as per the rules, the opposition was also allowed to speak on the point of order after Fawad but they were not given an opportunity.
Minutes of Parliamentary Committee on National Security
The lawyer representing the National Assembly speaker submitted minutes of the meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security as well.
Naeem Bukhari, who is representing the speaker and deputy speaker, said the Parliamentary Committee on National Security was briefed on the ‘threat letter’. He added that the committee was told that the letter warned of grave consequences in case of the failure of the no-trust vote.
As per the record, only 11 people attended the parliamentary committee’s meeting, Justice Bandial said. Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked who briefed the committee. “The names of those who briefed the committee are not included in the minutes,” the CJ said.
“Was the foreign minister part of the meeting,” the court asked. “We sent a notice,” the lawyer representing the committee replied. “Was he there,” asked the court again.
“It seems the foreign minister was not present in the meeting,” the lawyer responded. The court said the national security adviser’s name was also not in the minutes.
