PTI-led govt files review petition against SC’s decision to restore NA
ISLAMABAD, April 09 (SABAH): The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf-led government on Saturday filed a review petition against the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s decision to restore the National Assembly and block NA Deputy Speaker Qasim Khan Suri’s to dismiss the voting on the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The apex court’s five-member larger bench — headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel — had issued the ruling.
The top court had ordered National Assembly Speaker Asad Qasier to summon the session on Saturday (April 9) no later than 10:30 AM to allow the vote on the no-confidence motion against the premier.
PTI Secretary-General Asad Umar, Adviser to Prime Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Babar Awan, and Advocate Muhammad Azhar Siddique have filed the petition urging the top court to revoke its April 7 decision.
“The Supreme Court cannot dictate the timetable to the National Assembly under Article 69,” the petition said, as the government tries to avoid being ousted.
The PTI prayed that the “SC may review, recall and set aside the Impugned Order dated 07.04.2022 passed in the captioned cases which are based on errors floating on the surface, therefore, the impugned order may kindly be recalled and the captioned causes be dismissed/discharged”.
The government’s counsel further prayed that the execution of the ‘impugned order be suspended’ during the time being.
The review petition stated that the order, in the absence of any detailed reasons, is not a judicial determination in the context of Article 184(3) read with Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
“That under Order X of the referred Rules read with provisions of Articles 184, 184 and or 186 of the Constitution, the honourable Bench of the Apex Court cannot, vide an order, perforce direct discharge of constitutional obligations, by office holders of constitutional posts under the Constitution; obligations which enjoy constitutional protection and indemnities as per inter alia Article 69 read with Article 248 of the Constitution.”
“That the Honourable Bench of the August Court, despite its open court announcement/directions, has erred by not rendering any decision in the Presidential Reference No.01/2022 filed under Article 186 of the Constitution which was being heard along with the captioned cases and is of paramount importance,” added the review petition.
“In the absence of the determination in the stated Presidential Reference, the impugned order has prejudiced the proceedings of the Presidential Reference and has blemished the entire proceedings directed to be held on 09.04.2022 without any determination therein.”
The petition further added that order has given a “time table to proceed in the National Assembly (NA) which amounts to interfering in the affairs of the house/NA barred by Article 69 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan”.
“That the Honorable Court has given directions to the Speaker to act in a manner decided/dictated by the Honorable Court which is barred by Article 69 of the Constitution, thus violative of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.”
“That the Honourable Bench of the Apex Court has erred to appreciate the provisions of the Article 66, 67 and 69 of the Constitution read with Article 248 which bars the Apex Court to interfere in the proceedings of the Parliament and/or hold inter alia the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker as well as the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, to be subordinate and answerable to the jurisdiction of a Bench of the Apex Court despite the unequivocal bar of jurisdiction contained in the abovementioned Articles of the Constitution.”
“That the Apex Court has erred to appreciate the mandate of the Constitution which ensures that the Parliament, as well as the members/officers thereof, the President as well as the Prime Minister, are not answerable in the exercise of their discretionary powers and functions before any Court nor their discharge of constitutional obligations can be called into question before any court under the Constitution. The entire jurisdiction exercised by the Honourable Bench of the Apex Court is in violation of Article 175 of the Constitution,” it added.
PTI’s review petition further said that the apex court has “erred to appreciate that within the proceedings of the house, the Parliament are sovereign, independent and are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other Court. The impugned Order is in complete violation of the law laid down through all the prior judgments on the subject as referred before the Honourable Bench hearing these causes”.
“That it is pertinent to mention herein that the ruling issued by the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly was meant for the enforcement of Article 5 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hence, on this score, the impugned order needs to be reviewed by this Honorable Court.”
“That the Honourable Bench of the Apex Court has erred to appreciate that the “No Confidence Motion” has lapsed due to afflux of time as contained in Article 95(2) of Constitution; any direction to consider/hear/proceed thereon, is a direct violation of the stated mandate of the Constitution. All subsequent proceedings of the National Assembly will also be bad in law and the Constitution.
“That the procedures for a “No Confidence Motion”, election of a new Prime Minister, etc. have been elaborately provided in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, therefore, the Honorable Apex Court is not entitled to micro-manage the affairs of the Parliament”, says the review petition,” said PTI in its review petition.
In line with the top court’s decision, the National Assembly session to vote on the no-confidence motion had been called today at 10:30am.
The court’s historic order read: “In consequence of the foregoing, it is declared that at all material times the Prime Minister was under the bar imposed by the Explanation to clause (1) of Article 58 of the Constitution and continues to remain so restricted. He could not, therefore, have at any time advised the President to dissolve the Assembly as contemplated by clause (1) of Article 58.”
“In consequence of the foregoing, it is declared that the advice tendered by the Prime Minister on or about 03.04.2022 to the President to dissolve the Assembly was contrary to the Constitution and of no legal effect,” said the order.
The Supreme Court also “declared that the assembly was in existence at all times, and continues to remain and be so”.
The apex court also stated that the speaker cannot prorogue the assembly and bring the session to an end if the no-trust motion fails or after a new prime minister is elected if a no-confidence motion is passed.
The court ruled that no member will be barred from casting their vote. It also stated that if the no-trust motion fails then the government will continue to carry out its affairs.”…if the no-confidence motion against the prime minister succeeds, then the assembly will appoint the new prime minister,” the top court’s order said.