Supreme Court cannot determine foreign or state policy: Chief Justice
 |
| news update |
Chief Justice of Pakistan Omar Ata Bandial has said that the Supreme Court has to look only at the constitution and law. The Supreme Court cannot determine foreign policy or state policy.
During the hearing of the suo motu notice of the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly on Tuesday, the Supreme Court has also sought the record of the proceedings of the National Assembly session on the no-confidence motion.
On the other hand, in the arguments, the petitioners have requested to restore the assembly by declaring the rolling null and void. Meanwhile,
PPP lawyer Raza Rabbani said that the court should review the proceedings of the National Security Committee by summoning the alleged conspiratorial letter.
It is to be noted that a five-member larger bench headed by the Chief Justice is hearing the suo motu notice case and petitions filed by various political parties regarding the Speaker's rolling.
New courtroom restrictions
Journalists and junior lawyers were barred from entering courtroom number one due to heavy rush during the Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday. People accompanying political party leaders were barred from entering the courtroom.
Only leaders of political parties and lawyers were allowed in the courtroom. It may be recalled that due to overcrowding in Court Room No. 1 yesterday, fewer people were allowed to enter the Court Room.
Not listening to petitions to become a party: Chief Justice
When the hearing began, Afshan Ghazanfar Advocate requested to be a party in the case. The Chief Justice said that he was not listening to the pleas of the parties. Advocate Afshan Ghazanfar said that the whole issue should be called without any reason.
Former Pakistani ambassador to the US Asad Majeed, who wrote the letter, was summoned. The Chief Justice said, "Sit down. We have to listen to the lawyers of the political parties."
Meanwhile, advocate Zulfiqar Bhatta requested an inquiry into the letter before the hearing of the case and the court directed Zulfiqar Bhatta to leave the rostrum as well.
The system developed its own illegal alternative: Raza Rabbani
PPP leader Raza Rabbani said that the Election Commission has stated in the media that elections are not possible in three months. Efforts are being made to complete the arguments today and come to a conclusive decision.
On this, the Chief Justice said, "We also want haste but we will decide after hearing the position of all the parties." Raza Rabbani said in his arguments that the court has to see to what extent the parliamentary proceedings are exempt.
What happened can only be described as civilian martial law. The system automatically created its own alternative, which is unconstitutional. The no-confidence motion was approved on March 28, but the hearing was adjourned.
He said the no-confidence motion was approved on March 28 but the hearing was adjourned. The Deputy Speaker read out the roll call and found all the members guilty of violating Article Five.
The Deputy Speaker also did not announce that detailed rolling would be issued. It is unknown at this time what he will do after leaving the post. There was no court order before the Deputy Speaker and no inquiry report on the conspiracy.
The Deputy Speaker has made his oral rolling ineffective by giving written rolling. The rolling of the Deputy Speaker is unconstitutional.
 |
| news update |
Continuing his arguments, Raza Rabbani said that the procedure for removal of the Prime Minister is laid down in the Constitution. The Prime Minister can resign. If the majority is lost then the no-confidence motion has to get a vote of confidence.
If a resolution is passed in Parliament, then the Prime Minister cannot dissolve the Assemblies. He took the position that "no-confidence vote can be stopped only on the resignation of the Prime Minister. The President himself can ask the Prime Minister to take a vote of confidence. Even the Prime Minister cannot dissolve the Assembly until the no-confidence motion is voted on.
This could happen if members of the no-confidence motion withdraw it. When the no-confidence motion is tabled, it must be voted on. "
Court demands conspiracy letter Raza Rabbani said that
Raza Rabbani said that under Article 69, parliamentary proceedings are exempt. The decision of the Speaker to take action will be protected. Violation of Article 5 and rolling have nothing to do with each other.
The Deputy Speaker interpreted Article 5 and applied it to the members. The rolling of the speaker can be reviewed under Article 95 (2).
"Could the Speaker have given a roll call without a judicial finding?" The Prime Minister in his statement spoke of three options. The Establishment denied the allegation. This court should summon the alleged conspiracy letter and look into the request of the National Security Committee.
This can be investigated by forming a judicial commission. The court should declare Rolling null and void and restore the assembly.
The court sought a record of the assembly proceedings
When Raza Rabbani's arguments ended, PML-N lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan started his arguments. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said, "Lawyers should try to complete the case as soon as possible so that a verdict can be given."
Makhdoom Ali Khan said in his arguments that the court should look into the no-confidence motion resolution. A no-confidence motion was filed to remove the Prime Minister. The movement took the position that the Prime Minister had lost the majority.
He said that Shahbaz Sharif had moved a no-confidence motion under the Rules of Business of the Assembly. When the Speaker voted for the resolution, more than 161 members voted in favor of the no-confidence motion.
The Deputy Speaker gave permission to present the resolution. Then on March 31 the meeting was adjourned till April 3 without any action. On this, the Chief Justice asked how the March 31 adjournment was done. Is there anyone (present) from the speaker? Give us notice of the proceedings of the meeting. The record of the speaker should be presented.
On the occasion, Justice Muneeb Akhtar said, “It is in the rules when to do something on a no-confidence motion. Not in the constitution. "
 |
| news update |
Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that "Rules have also been made under the Constitution." Justice Muneeb Akhtar again asked, "How did the non-voting violate the constitution?" According to the constitution, a vote of no confidence is required within seven days.
If for some reason voting is on the eighth day, will it be unconstitutional? Makhdoom Ali Khan replied, “Article 95 is self-evident. Which provides a complete process. " Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that there is a complete procedure in Articles 91 and 95. Does it protect the rules? '
Makhdoom Ali Khan said that even if there is any irregularity in the procedure, unconstitutional action cannot be taken. Voting lasts from three to seven days.
This period cannot be extended beyond seven days on the ground of irregularity. Justice Muneeb Akhtar said, "Does Article 69 protect against irregularities in Articles 91 and 95?" Makhdoom Ali Khan replied, "
The constitution is clear. It is written in the constitution that the no-confidence motion must be passed by a majority." If it is a matter of interpretation then Article 69 does not come in the way. The court has already ruled on the Balochistan Assembly issue. The Balochistan Assembly was dissolved in 1999 and restored.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar again asked, "How did the non-voting violate the constitution?" According to the constitution, a vote of no confidence is required within seven days.
If for some reason voting is on the eighth day, will it be unconstitutional? Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that voting on the eighth day would not be unconstitutional. If there is a valid reason for voting after the stipulated period, then Article 254 will be protected.
tage,
No-confidence motion,
Political stakes,
Supreme Court,
Opposition,
National Assembly,
Constitution,
Speaker
