The Supreme Court has issued a detailed decision on the suo motu notice against the rolling of the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly during the no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister.
The detailed judgment consists of 86 pages written by Chief Justice Umrata Bandial.
The decision on the self-notice against the rolling of the Deputy Speaker has started from Surah Ash-Shu’ara. The judgment said that in the house meeting of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, 12 judges recommended suo motu notice, the court took suo motu notice on Speaker Rolling to uphold and protect the Constitution and the unconstitutional move of the Deputy Speaker activated the Supreme Court.
According to the text of the decision, the decision of the Deputy Speaker to reject the no-confidence motion is unconstitutional.
The majority judgment said that the PTI lawyer referred to the letter regarding external interference but the full text of the alleged external letter was not shown to the court and part of the letter was presented before the Supreme Court as evidence.
The verdict said that according to the PTI lawyer, the letter threatened to overthrow the government. The alleged foreign letter was a secret diplomatic document. Due to diplomatic relations, the court could not issue any order regarding the letter.
According to the text of the judgment, the Speaker’s self-notification on the Supreme Court’s ruling was on violation of the fundamental rights of political parties.
The Supreme Court has said that the April 3 speaker rolling for national security should have been based on evidence. Judicial review of government measures taken without evidence can be done. Investigate the post or say who conspired outside? The government should investigate the letter by March 31 or present the facts to the opposition.
According to the text of the decision, on the day of voting on the no-confidence motion, the Law Minister for the first time requested the Deputy Speaker to issue an order regarding the external conspiracy. That’s why he called for an investigation into the external conspiracy.
The apex court said that on April 2, the then law minister had asked for the formation of a commission on external interference. Rejected, the court is not satisfied with the argument of external interference.
The judgment said that the evidence before the court contained only the statement of the Deputy Speaker in the evidence related to the external conspiracy. According to the alleged letter, who is involved in overthrowing the government?
The decision states that Article 69 (1) makes it clear that parliamentary proceedings are protected by the court, but there is no protection in parliamentary proceedings if there is a constitutional violation. The court does not interfere in the affairs of the legislature until it crosses constitutional limits. Under Article 95 (2) of the Constitution, the Speaker is required to vote on a no-confidence motion.
The decision said that the Deputy Speaker Rolling did not enjoy constitutional protection. The Deputy Speaker personally decided to grant Rolling at the behest of the Law Minister. The court clarified its position on Article 69 (1). (1) There were flaws in the implementation of the no-confidence motion. After the no-confidence motion was tabled on March 8, the speaker violated the constitution on March 22 and the speaker violated the constitution by not giving the opposition a chance to discuss the motion on April 3.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Rolling was beyond the powers given to the Speaker in the Constitution. The power to grant Rolling rests solely with the Speaker, not the Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker ignored Article 95, the Deputy Speaker ruled under Article 5 which was not within his jurisdiction.
According to the text of the decision, the opposition has been accused of being part of an external conspiracy but its position has not been taken. Approval or rejection can only be by voting.
The Supreme Court has said that the Deputy Speaker’s ruling is a mockery of Articles 95 and 69 (1) of the Constitution and is illegal. The court cannot take notice of such a case.
The court held that the Speaker’s rolling on the basis of Article 5 was presumptive, unilateral and out of jurisdiction. Judicial intervention in the acquisition of privileges is not a degradation but a strengthening.
The Supreme Court decision said that one side stressed that if the no-confidence motion was successful, the government would fall into the hands of alleged corrupt people.
In a detailed judgment, the apex court said that the court did not have the power to decide on objections based on ethics. Disqualified persons cannot participate in elections.
In addition, the Supreme Court said that the opposition is a combination of different political parties, the PTI is the majority party in the National Assembly, whether it is in government or in the opposition can work for the public interest, in government or in opposition. However, the constitutional obligation can be fulfilled.
The decision of the Supreme Court has said that after the rolling of the Speaker, a constitutional crisis has arisen in the country. Every citizen of the country has been affected by the constitutional crisis. Does not make decisions based on individual opinion.
The detailed decision said that justifying the dissolution of the National Assembly due to illegal action of the President, Prime Minister and Deputy Speaker would be a violation of the Constitution. The restoration of the National Assembly promoted parliamentary democracy. Confidence succeeds or fails, constitutional supremacy is essential, and strong opposition in the Senate and National Assembly is essential.
It may be recalled that a no-confidence motion against the then Prime Minister Imran Khan was to be voted on April 3 this year. However, the then Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly rejected the motion as unconstitutional. He said in his address that he had asked the President to dissolve the Assembly and the nation should prepare for the elections.
After Imran Khan’s speech on April 3, President Arif Alvi dissolved the National Assembly, but the opposition declared the whole process unconstitutional and called a sit-in inside the assembly.
The Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the proceedings of the National Assembly, which lasted for five days, and declared the rolling of the Deputy Speaker and his subsequent steps unconstitutional.
A five-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial heard the most important case which also included Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Mazhar Alam Mian Khel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.