ISLAMABAD: A hearing is underway on the issue of ruling of the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly and dissolving the assembly on the no-confidence motion against the prime minister.
A larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial is hearing the case.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked that a very important case is being heard. They want to end the hearing first on what happened in the National Assembly on April 3. Negative comments are being made about the court. That the court is delaying the matter, we will see the matter of the Punjab Assembly in the end, he remarked.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that they want to decide the case today. Advocate General Punjab had assured the court that we have to decide after listening to all. We cannot take unilateral action.
Azam Nazir Tarar said that the issue of Punjab Assembly is also an extension of the issue of Islamabad, to which the Chief Justice said that Advocate General Punjab would be asked under which law the meeting was adjourned.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Babar Awan while giving arguments said that all political parties are parties before the court. MQM, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan are not parties. Balochistan Awami Party, PTM and Jamaat-e-Islami are also not parties. The Rah-e-Haq party also has representation in Parliament but it is not a party before the court. We have always supported suo motu. Thank you for taking suo motu and being kind to the nation, he said.
Babar Awan said that the case is that the Speaker’s action is illegal. Someone was called a traitor with reference to Article 5, the court has been asked to interpret Article 2 of the Constitution. The position of political parties is that under the Article 5 they were declared a traitor.
The CJ said that the action taken under Article 5 has been referred as a traitor and not them.
Babar Awan said that no one said a word on Article 63A, they claim that they are trying to save the parliamentary democracy. The majority party of Punjab, Azad Kashmir was not given relief.
The Chief Justice remarked that we have to see if the Speaker has the power to deviate from the agenda in the House and move on to any fact. There is a constitutional way to sideline it. You also have to say that the courts run according to the law, an allegation has been made in this case, the Deputy Speaker has taken a step, let’s get to the basics.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked PTI lawyer Babar Awan if there was any background in what the Speaker did. Was ruling on a finding? On what basis did the speaker rule? What content did he have?
