April 3 measures unconstitutional, National Assembly restored
Spread the love

ISLAMABAD: (JTN) April 3 measures unconstitutional

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has declared the rolling of the

Deputy Speaker as unconstitutional and restored the National

Assembly and Cabinet as April 3 while ordering to convene a

meeting on April 9 for a no-confidence vote.

According to details, a five-member larger bench headed by Chief

Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial, after a four-day

hearing, gave a brief and unanimous verdict in the suo motu notice

case while announcing a detailed verdict to be issued later.

Supreme Court decision.

= larger bench in an 8-page summary judgment

The apex court’s larger bench in an 8-page summary judgment

quashed the deputy speaker’s April 3 rolling order and the prime

minister’s recommendation to dissolve the National Assembly while

the president’s order to dissolve the assembly was declared illegal.

Restored as,

=National Assembly Meeting on April 9, 2022 at 10 am.

The Supreme Court directed to convene a meeting of the National

Assembly on April 9, 2022 at 10 am to continue the no-confidence

motion and directed that if the no-confidence motion is successful

then the National Assembly should elect a new Prime Minister If

Imran Khan continues his work as the Prime Minister, all the

members including the Speaker are bound to implement the

decision.

=Prime Minister was not qualified to dissolve the Assembly,

The summary judgment states that Article 63A will not be affected

by the judgment of the court, the government can in no way

prevent members from voting. The decision of the Supreme Court

said that the Prime Minister was not qualified to dissolve the

Assembly, therefore the House should be restored to its old status

and the Speaker should reconvene on Saturday. If the no-confidence

motion is successful, the election of a new Prime Minister should be

held immediately.

= Imran Khan as the Prime Minister and his cabinet members were restored

According to the court decision, Imran Khan as the Prime Minister

and his cabinet members were restored, as well as aides and

advisers. In the wake of the verdict, the internal and external security

of the Supreme Court was tightened and no unauthorized persons

were allowed to enter the court room except certain persons.

=Last day of hearing of self notice case.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Chief

Justice Omar Ata Bandial had reserved its judgment after hearing

the Speaker Rowling’s suo motu notice case, during which the

government and opposition lawyers completed their arguments.

The larger bench consisted of Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Mazhar

Alam Mian Khel, Justice Muneeb Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan

Mando Khel.

=We also have to look after the national interest.

Before saving the verdict, the Chief Justice remarked that everyone

is respected in politics but God forbid the nation is longing for

leadership, one thing is clear and that is that Speaker Rolling is

wrong, it remains to be seen. What will happen, even if the assembly

is restored, there will be no stability in the country but the country

needs stability while the opposition also says stability, we also have

to look after the national interest.

=I am not defending Rolling but my respondent is new election.

Attorney General Khalid Javed also said that I am not defending

Rolling but my respondent is new election. Justice Jamal Mandokhel

remarked that the court does not have to decide on the basis of

circumstances and results, the court has to decide on the basis of

the constitution. Who is not and we will not go to the results.

=Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s appearance in court

Bilawal Bhutto also appeared in the court and said that it is not our

priority to form a government for ourselves.

The Chief Justice asked whether the electoral reform proposal was

tabled. Has there been a bill for electoral reform? We know your

family has made sacrifices for democracy. Call for electoral reforms

in your Senate.

= Bilawal Bhutto, thank’s you are the one who had a smile on your face.

The Chief Justice said, “Bilawal Bhutto, thank you for your strong

words and you are the only one who had a smile on your face. Let

us strictly abide by the constitution and issue a decision. The

decision will be in accordance with the constitution and law.” It is

known that three generations of Bilawal Bhutto have sacrificed for

the survival of democracy.

=Opposition leader Shahbaz Sharif appears in court

Opposition leader in the Supreme Court Shahbaz Sharif said that

the no-confidence motion would be restored when the rolling was

over and if the Speaker’s rolling was annulled then the dissolution of

the Assembly would end automatically. The Chief Justice remarked

that we need a strong government, not a weak one.

=Let the parliament vote on no-confidence.

Shahbaz Sharif said that if the court declares the Speaker’s rolling

unconstitutional then the steps taken by the Prime Minister will be

terminated and as a result the dissolved assembly will be restored.

Will also be Let the court restore the parliament in the name of Allah

and Pakistan, let the parliament vote on no-confidence.

=How many seats did you have in the 2013 elections? Chief Justice

The Leader of the Opposition said that the government was based

on 174 votes and we have 177 members. The Chief Justice asked

how many seats did you have in the 2013 elections? Shahbaz Sharif

said that there were more than 150 seats in the last elections.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that the opposition wanted to

hold elections from day one. Shahbaz Sharif said that the issue was

to break the constitution. Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that

we will amend the constitution.

=Still a year and a half left in the parliament. Shahbaz Sharif

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan asked that if the no-confidence motion is

successful then how long will the assembly last? Shahbaz Sharif said

that there is still a year and a half left in the parliament and he will

work with his opposition for electoral reforms so that transparent

elections can take place.

=Arguments of Naeem Bukhari

Prior to the Attorney General’s arguments, the Speaker and Deputy

Speaker’s counsel Naeem Bukhari had presented the minutes of the

meeting of the Parliamentary National Security Committee in the

Supreme Court which revealed that the Foreign Minister and the

National Security Advisor were not present at the meeting.

After the meeting was adjourned, the court inquired whether the

Foreign Minister was also present at the meeting. Naeem Bukhari

replied that the notice was sent. The court then inquired whether

the notice was gone. Our question is whether he was present at the

national security meeting or not. Naeem Bukhari said that it seems

that they were not present in this meeting. The court remarked that

the name of National Security Advisor Moeed Yousaf was also

missing.

=The Foreign Minister are not visible in the minutes

Justice Jamal Mandokhel remarked that Foreign Minister was

present in the parliamentary committee meeting. The signatures of

the Foreign Minister are not visible in the minutes of the meeting.

Shouldn’t the Foreign Minister have been in the meeting? Naeem

Bukhari said that the foreign minister should have been in the

parliamentary committee meeting. The Chief Justice said that the

name of Moeed Yousuf was also not visible in the minutes of the

meeting.

=Point of order is not discussed. Naeem Bukhari

Naeem Bukhari also presented Fawad Chaudhry’s point of order in

the court. The Chief Justice inquired that instead of rolling on the

point of order, the answer should not have been taken from the

opposition. Naeem Bukhari said that point of order is not discussed.

Justice Mazhar Alam and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked

that the proceedings of the Parliament were hardly two or three

minutes long. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked that the

rolling was given by the Deputy Speaker while the signatures on the

rolling belong to the Speaker. Where are the signatures of the

Deputy Speaker on the rolling? Naeem Bukhari said that the

document presented is probably not original.

=The speaker can reject the no-confidence motion

At the beginning of the arguments, Justice Jamal Mandokhel had

asked Naeem Bukhari whether it was unconstitutional for the

Speaker not to hold a no-confidence vote. Naeem Bukhari

questioned that if the Speaker had rejected the point of order,

would the court have intervened even then?

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan asked whether the pending motion of no-

confidence could be rejected on the point of order. Naeem Bukhari

said that the speaker can reject the no-confidence motion at the

point of order, it has never happened before but the speaker has the

power, now new elections have been announced and now the

matter is with the people. This should not be the case.

=Arguments of Prime Minister Imtiaz Siddiqui

During the hearing, the Chief Justice remarked that apparently

Article 95 has been violated. If anyone else has a majority, the

government should announce the election. Billions of rupees are

spent by the nation on holding elections and every time the nation

loses billions from elections, this is in the national interest.

Imtiaz Siddiqui, counsel for Prime Minister Imran Khan, argued that

the court had not interfered in the proceedings of Parliament in the

past and the matter before the court was a matter of House

proceedings. The Chief Justice said that the court has to look after

the national interest.

=Rolling could have come before the motion of no-confidence

Imtiaz Siddiqui argued that the proceedings of the House are

beyond the jurisdiction of the judiciary but the court asked the

parliament to clean up its own mess. Is given and now the Prime

Minister is acting on the instructions of the President.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that if a coalition government is

formed, is it possible to put the largest party against the wall.

The Chief Justice queried that the petitioners had said that Rolling

could not come after the Leo Grant, the petitioners are of the view

that Rolling could have come before the motion of no-confidence

was moved on March 28 Will say

Lawyer to PM Imtiaz Siddiqui said that the opposition had not

objected to the presidency of the Deputy Speaker. ۔

The Chief Justice remarked that the law is that the court will decide

the merits of the parliamentary proceedings and the court will

review the extent to which the merits of the proceedings are meted

out.

Supreme Court cannot interfere in the proceedings of Parliament.

Imtiaz Siddiqui argued that if the Speaker knew that there was

external funding or threat to the country’s integrity, he would save

the country even outside the law. Is the case,

He further said that if Article 69 is read in conjunction with Article

127 then parliamentary proceedings have full protection and the

Supreme Court cannot interfere in the proceedings of Parliament

under Article 69.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that the decisions referred to by

the Supreme Court were not binding on them. Justice Muneeb

Akhtar remarked that the decisions cited contained observations

and the court was not bound by the observations made in the

decisions.

Lawyer Imtiaz Siddiqui said that the Deputy Speaker relied on the

National Security Committee and the National Security Committee

could not be affected.

The Chief Justice inquired whether the Deputy Speaker had any

material available on the basis of which he gave the rolling. Was the

rolling of the Deputy Speaker based on good faith? When were the

minutes of the National Security Committee placed before the

Deputy Speaker?

=Minutes of the NSC placed before the Deputy Speaker? CJ

The Chief Justice inquired whether the Deputy Speaker had any

material available on the basis of which he gave the rolling. Was the

rolling of the Deputy Speaker based on good faith? When were the

minutes of the National Security Committee placed before the

Deputy Speaker?

In reply, lawyer Imtiaz Siddiqui said that he did not know about the

issue of Deputy Speaker, to which the Chief Justice asked him not to

talk about what he did not know.

=Why didn’t the Speaker reject the no-confidence motion on March 28?

The Chief Justice said that according to him, the Deputy Speaker

had the material on the day of voting which was rolled out. Inquired

that the Prime Minister violated the limits of Article 58, what will be

the consequences? The Deputy Speaker had no problem with the

voting on March 28, but it came rolling on the day of voting. Why

didn’t the Speaker reject the no-confidence motion on March 28?

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that if the Assembly had not been

dissolved, the House could have ended the rolling of the Deputy

Speaker but the Prime Minister took advantage of the situation and

dissolved the Assembly.

Read More:—>Latest News around the World including Pakistan

April 3 measures unconstitutional , April 3 measures unconstitutional , April 3 measures unconstitutional , April 3 measures unconstitutional , April 3 measures unconstitutional

Readers:– if you like our efforts, ” Follow Us ” , stay updated

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: