ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared the deputy speaker ruling on Punjab chief minister election null and void after hearing arguments on petitions related to the recently held election for the coveted post.
A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar announced the reserved verdict after over a three-hour delay.
“The governance of the Province of Punjab in accordance with the Constitution has been subverted whereby the fundamental rights of the people have been seriously infringed. As a result, the Ruling dated 22.07.2022 issued by Respondent No.1, Deputy Speaker, Punjab Assembly is set aside and declared to be void, without lawful authority and of no legal effect,” reads the short order.
The court declared the ten votes of PML-Q lawmakers, which were rejected by Deputy Speaker Dost Mohammad Mazari citing party chief Chaudhry Shujaat’s letter in the CM election, as valid.
The apex court in its short verdict ordered the petitioner, Pervaiz Elahi to take oath of the Punjab CM at 11:30pm tonight and ordered incumbent Punjab CM Hamza Shehbaz to leave the post of the province’s chief execute immediately.
The apex court also nullified all decisions taken by ‘trustee CM’ Hamza after the controversial chief minister election in which Hamza bagged 179 votes against Elahi’s 186 votes.
The three-judge bench also held that the deputy speaker misinterpreted the apex court order on Article-63A related to the defection clause and “subverted the Constitution”.
The president will administer oath of the chief minister to Pervaiz Elahi if the same was not performed by the Punjab governor, read the verdict. PTI leaders and workers started celebrating the landmark verdict soon after it was announced.
Former premier and PTI Chairman Imran Khan also appreciated the apex court judges for “standing firm and upholding the Constitution and law, against all manner of threats and abuse”.
He thanked Barrister Ali Zafar and his team in a Twitter post. “I want to thank the people of Punjab for coming out in unprecedented numbers in by-elections against rigging,” he added.
Speaking outside the Supreme Court, PTI Vice Chairman Shah Mahmood Qureshi hailed the apex court verdict saying, “I pay tribute to the judges for tolerating unruly behaviour of the government ministers”.
He said the verdict is the victory of the public mandate and Constitution. “People rejected the imported government and this is a victory of public mandate and Constitution,” he remarked. Qureshi also lashed out at the Punjab deputy speaker, Dost Mohammad Mazari, who belongs to PTI, saying he played a “shameful role” in the chief minister’s re-election.
“[Prime Minister] Shehbaz Shairf should dissolve assemblies and call early elections which is the only solution now”.
Deputy Speaker Sardar Dost Muhammad Mazari, in his ruling, had rejected 10 votes of the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid’s (PML-Q) members relying upon the supreme court’s verdict that votes of those lawmakers, who defied the party leadership’s instructions, would not be counted.
The counsel for Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Mohammad Mazari, Irfan Qadir, informed the Supreme Court that his client had instructed him not to participate further in the case proceedings and he would instead file a petition for review of the court’s decision not to constitute a full bench.
PPP counsel Farooq H. Naek also declined to participate in the court proceedings. The development comes as the court resumed hearing PML-Q leader Chaudhry Parvez Elahi’s petition challenging the deputy speaker’s ruling in the recently held re-election for the Punjab chief minister, which led to Hamza Shehbaz’s victory.
During the course of proceedings, Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman said he would assist the court in accordance with Article 27 of the Constitution.
The chief justice remarked that the bench had not been provided with even one legal argument in favour of constituting a full bench during yesterday’s hearing. He advised lawyers to remain in the court and watch the proceedings. The legal question had not been answered yet, he added.
He said the question was whether the party head could issue instructions to the parliamentary party.
“According to the law, the parliamentary party makes the decision who to vote for. The party head can send a reference in case of deviation from the party policy.” He said that a full-court bench could not be formed for this question.
The chief justice said lawyers for all sides had been given time to present their arguments. The Supreme Court had dismissed the caretaker cabinet in 1988, he added. He said that the chief executive was the head of the cabinet.
He said that the court wanted to wrap up the matter of Punjab chief minister as soon as possible as it could not be convinced to constitute a full bench. He said that a full bench could not be formed till the second week of September and said the court would now hear arguments on the case’s merit.
There was a crisis in the province because of this case and further delaying tactics would not be tolerated in this case, he added. The chief justice said that 21st Amendment was brought up during the hearing where former SC judge Azmat Saeed had observed regarding the 18th Amendment that vote would be cast in accordance with the party head’s instructions.
He said that the present case was different and the court would need assistance. Article 63-A did not include the question of who would give the instructions, he said and added that the question was only about the consequences of defection at the time of the interpretation.
He said that if someone had comprehended the Constitution incorrectly, the interpretation could be cancelled. He said that misinterpreting the Constitution meant that the Constitution had not been understood correctly. Out of 17 judges, eight had given their opinions on the 21st amendment, he added.
He said that this judgement was not the majority’s decision because a majority of nine judges was required while the full bench had comprised 17 members. He said that he wanted to wind up the case at the earliest because of issues of governance and the crisis in Punjab.
He asked whether the Supreme Court could be bound by the decision of eight of its 17 judges. The majority of the full-court bench did not agree with the party head issuing directions, he added.
He said that those who boycotted court proceedings had shown enough grace to sit and watch them. Barrister Ali Zafar counsel for Parvez Elahi said that the court had heard detailed arguments yesterday and the matter here did not concern the interpretation of Article 63-A.
He said that the court had already interpreted it before. Here, the matter concerned the directions of the party head, he added. He said that as per the 18th Amendment, the party head was given the power to take action against dissident members.
Zafar said that in the judgement regarding the 21st Amendment former SC judge Jawad S Khawaja had declared Article 63-A against the Constitution and was of the opinion that the law stopped members from voting freely.
He said that a parliamentary party and the party leader were two different things. Justice Ijaz said that as per the Constitution, the party head ensured implementation of the parliamentary party’s decision.
The chief justice said that the parliamentary party did not take decision on its own. He asked the counsel what did the law say on whose instruction should the vote be cast?
Barrister Zafar responded that the Constitution stated directions regarding the vote were issued by the parliamentary party. The chief justice asked whether the parliamentary party was separate from the party head.
The counsel replied that a law was introduced during former President Pervez Musharraf’s tenure that empowered the head of the parliamentary party, instead of the party chief but the law was repealed through the 18th Amendment.
Justice Munib Akhtar asked about the definition of the party chief. Justice Ijaz asked where was the word parliamentary leader used?
Advocate Zafar said that parliamentary party was mentioned in the law concerning political parties in 2002. Justice Ijaz said that the word parliamentary leader instead of parliamentary party was a mere mistake. The chief justice said that Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s lawyer had informed the court that a letter was sent to all party MPAs with clear instructions.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Counsel Imtiaz Siddiqui replied that the way voting was done for the re-election before the court as the federal government had utilised all its resources and all party chiefs were present in Lahore at the time.
The chief justice asked Deputy Speaker Mazari and PPP’s counsels to rethink their decision to boycott court proceedings. He said that the court would reach its decision in a “better way” if the counsels for all parties assisted the bench. Barrister Ali Zafar said that the matter of the Chief Minister had been under discussion for three months.
All the PML-Q lawmakers knew which candidate to vote for, he added. He said that the apex court had previously decided that a person who had been disqualified could not be the party head.
The chief justice said that arguments had been made on the important role of a party head. Advocate Zafar said that no one was disputing the importance of the party head. A party head could issue directives to the parliamentary party head but could not dictate him, he added.
