The Supreme Court on Tues declared the deputy speaker ruling on Punjab chief minister election null and void after hearing arguments on petitions associated with the recently took place election for the in-demand post.
Supreme Court of Pakistan
A three-member bench comprising judge Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Munib Akhtar declared the reserved decision after over a three-hour delay.
The order is that the governance of the Province of Punjab following the Constitution has been subverted whereby the elemental rights of the individuals are seriously infringed.
As a result, the Ruling dated 22.07.2022 issued by Respondent No.1, Deputy Speaker, Punjab Assembly is about aside and declared to be void, while not lawful authority and of no legal impact.
The court declared the 10 votes of PML-Q lawmakers, that were rejected by Deputy Speaker Dost Mohammed Mazari citing party chief Chaudhry Shujaat’s letter within the CM election, as valid.
The Supreme court conjointly invalided all choices taken by ‘trustee CM’ Hamza after the contentious chief minister election within which Hamza bagged 179 votes against Elahi’s 186 votes.
The three-judge bench conjointly control that the deputy speaker misinterpreted the Supreme Court writ on Article-63A associated with the defection clause and “subverted the Constitution”.
The president can administer the oath of the chief minister to Pervaiz Elahi if a similar Governor of Punjab does not take the oath, according to the decision. PTI leaders and employees started celebrating the decision shortly after it was declared.
Former premier and PTI Chairman Imran Khan conjointly appreciated the Supreme court judges for standing firm and upholding the Constitution and law, against all manner of threats and abuse.
He thanked attorney Ali Zafar and his team in an exceedingly Twitter post, he said that I thanked to impart the individuals of Punjab for beginning in unprecedented numbers in by-elections against rigging.
Speaking outside the Supreme Court, PTI chairperson Shah Mahmood Qureshi hailed the Supreme court decision and said that I pay tribute to the judges for tolerating the unruly behavior of the govt. ministers.
He said that Shehbaz Sharif ought to dissolve assemblies and decide on early elections which is the sole solution currently.
Deputy Speaker Sardar Dost Muhammad Mazari, in his ruling, had rejected ten votes of the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid’s (PML-Q) members relying upon the supreme court’s Verdict that votes of these lawmakers, who defied the party leadership’s directions, wouldn’t be counted.
The counsel for Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Mohammed Mazari, Irfan Qadir, well-read the Supreme Court that his client had guided him to not participate more in the case proceedings and he would instead file a petition for review of the court’s call to not represent a full bench.
PPP counsel Farooq H. Naek conjointly declined to participate in the court proceedings. The event comes because the court resumed hearing PML-Q leader Chaudhry Parvez Elahi’s petition challenging the deputy speaker’s ruling within the recently control re-election for the Punjab chief minister, which led to Hamza Shehbaz’s triumph.
During proceedings, additional Attorney General Ameer Rehman aforementioned he would assist the court following Article twenty-seven of the Constitution.
The judge remarked that the bench had not been supplied with even one legal argument in favor of constituting a full bench throughout yesterday’s hearing. He suggested lawyers stay within the court and watch the proceedings. The legal question had not been answered however, he added.
He said that the question was whether or not the party head might issue directions to the parliamentary party.
The judge said the lawyers for all sides had been given time to represent their arguments. The Supreme Court had laid off the caretaker cabinet in 1988, he added. He aforementioned that the chief executive was the head of the cabinet.
He said that the court wished to bring to close the matter of the Punjab chief minister as shortly as possible because it couldn’t be convinced to represent a full bench.
He said that a full bench couldn’t be shaped until the second week of September and said that the court would currently hear arguments on the case’s advantage.
There was a crisis within the province owing to this case and additional delaying techniques wouldn’t be tolerated during this case, he added.
The judge said that the twenty-first modification was cited throughout the hearing wherever former SC judge Azmat Saeed had discovered concerning the eighteenth modification that the vote would be solid following the party head’s directions.
He said that this case was totally different and therefore the court would need help. Article 63-A failed to embody the question of who would offer the directions, he said, and added that the question was solely concerning the results of defection at the time of the interpretation.
He said that if somebody had understood the Constitution incorrectly, the interpretation may well be off. He aforementioned that misinterpreting the Constitution meant that the Constitution had not been understood properly.
Out of seventeen judges, eight had given their opinions on the twenty-first modification, he added.
He asked whether or not the Supreme Court could be certain by the choice of eight of its seventeen judges. The majority of the full-court bench failed to accept as true the party head supply directions, he added.
He said that those that boycotted court proceedings had shown enough grace to take a seat and watch them.
Barrister Ali Zafar’s counsel for Parvez Elahi aforementioned that the court had detected careful arguments yesterday and therefore the matter here failed to concern the interpretation of Article 63-A.
He said that the court had already taken it before. Here, the matter involved the directions of the party head, he added. He said that as per the eighteenth modification, the party head was given the facility to take action against dissident members.
Zafar said that within the judgment concerning the twenty-first modification former SC judge Jawad S Khawaja had declared Article 63-A against the Constitution and believed that the law stopped members from voting freely.
He aforementioned that a parliamentary party and therefore the party leader were 2 various things. Justice Ijaz was aforementioned that as per the Constitution, the party head ensured the implementation of the parliamentary party’s call.
The judge said that the parliamentary party failed to take a call on its own. He asked the counsel what did the law say on whose instruction ought the vote be cast?
Barrister Zafar responded that the Constitution’s explicit directions concerning the vote were issued by the parliamentary party. The judge asked whether or not the parliamentary party was separate from the party head.
The counsel replied that a law was introduced throughout former President Pervez Musharraf’s tenure that sceptered the head of the parliamentary party, rather than the party chief however the law was repealed through the eighteenth modification.
Justice Munib Akhtar asked concerning the definition of the party chief. Justice Ijaz asked wherever was the word parliamentary head used?
Advocate Zafar said that the parliamentary the party was mentioned within the law regarding political parties in 2002. Justice Ijaz said that the word parliamentary head rather than the parliamentary party was a mere mistake.
The judge said that Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s lawyer had told the court that a letter was sent to all party MPAs with clear directions.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Counsel Imtiaz Siddiqui replied that the way voting was done for the re-election before the court was the federal government had utilized all its resources and all party MPAs were present in Lahore.
The judge asked Deputy Speaker Mazari and PPP’s counsels to rethink their call to boycott court proceedings. He aforementioned that the court would reach its call in an exceedingly “better way” if the counsels for all parties aided the bench. Barrister Ali Zafar said that the matter of the Chief Minister had been under discussion for 3 months.