The Supreme Court Monday adjourned its hearing on the legality of the current situation in the country following the dismissal of a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan by the National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri and the subsequent dissolution of the assembly by President Arif Alvi on the prime minister’s advice till 12pm on Tuesday (today).
A larger bench of the Supreme Court – comprising the CJP, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail – took up the matter.
Justice Ahsan noted that there were violations in the proceedings of the no-trust resolution. Justice Bandial observed that a debate before voting on the no-confidence motion was clearly mentioned in the law but didn’t take place.
Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar questioned the deputy speaker’s constitutional authority to pass such a ruling. “I don’t think the deputy speaker had the authority to pass such a ruling,” Justice Akhtar said, adding that only the speaker could do so. “The deputy speaker only chairs the session on unavailability of the speaker,” the judge said.
Representing the PPP and other opposition parties, Farooq H. Naek contended that the ‘threat letter’ on the basis of which the ruling was passed was never shown in parliament.
Here, the CJP observed that the deputy speaker’s ruling mentioned the meeting of the parliamentary committee for security. “The opposition deliberately didn’t attend the meeting,” he said, adding that the matter of the letter was put forth there.
“This needs to be answered by all political parties,” the CJP said, adding that the parliamentary committee meeting was important.
Naek pleaded the court to issue a verdict on the matter, pointing out to the bench that the president had already asked for names to appoint as caretaker prime minister.
But Justice Ahsan said it was impossible to pass the verdict, adding that the apex court’s decision would have far reaching outcomes. “We respect the opinions of political parties. We can’t pass a decision in the air,” Justice Bandial said, adjourning the hearing till 12pm on Tuesday.
Earlier, Naek had urged the CJP to form a full court bench to hear the matter, saying that the case concerned complex matters of the law and therefore all judges of the apex court should sit on the bench.
The CJP, however, asked Naek if he had objections to any judge on the five-member bench. “If there is a lack of confidence in any of the judges, the bench will rise,” Justice Bandial said. To this, Naek said he had full confidence in all judges on the bench.
Justice Bandial said forming a full court bench would impede proceedings of other cases. When PTI’s counsel Babar Awan took the rostrum, the chief justice said that he wanted to hear the petitioners first. “If you want to give a statement, you can,” Justice Bandial told Awan, who informed the court that the party was ready for the next election.
“The court will only review the speaker’s ruling, not political statements,” the chief justice remarked, reiterating that the court would give a “reasonable decision”.
Naek told the court that the requisition notice for the NA session and no-confidence motion were submitted on March 8. “The speaker was bound to convene the session within 14 days but the meeting was called on March 27,” he said.
However, Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the case did not concern when the NA session was summoned while Justice Akhtar said that the speaker had provided reasons for the delay. “You can argue whether the reasons provided were correct or incorrect,” Justice Akhtar told Naek.
