Speaker's ruling: Security beefed up outside SC as verdict expected today

ISLAMABAD: Security outside the Supreme Court of Pakistan has been tightened in the wake of the apex court verdict in a case related to National Assembly deputy speaker’s ruling to block the vote of no-confidence against Prime Minister Imran Khan.

According to details, the Islamabad police increased security level outside the apex court by deploying additional cops as top court is likely to announce its verdict today.

SSP Islamabad and SSP security were also present inside the premises of the top court.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday resumed hearing into a suo-moto notice against the ruling of Deputy Speaker National Assembly Qasim Khan Suri over a no-trust move against the then Prime Minister Imran Khan.

The five-member larger bench of the apex court hearing the suo moto comprises of Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.

Barrister Ali Zafar’s arguments

The counsel for President, Barrister Ali Zafar, resumed his arguments before the court and over a question from the bench if the court is not the guardian of the Constitution, Zafar said that the constitution will only be safeguarded through constitutional means.

“Every article of the constitution should be kept in mind in order to guard it,” he said.

To this, the chief justice said that if voting would have been allowed over the no-trust motion, it would have brought clarity regarding who is the prime minister. To this Zafar asked if Parliament would be allowed to intervene if there is a dispute between the judges of the apex court.

“Since judiciary cannot intervene in the Parliamentary affairs in a similar way Parliament could not intervene in judicial affairs,” he argued.

During the arguments, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said Parliament has the right to make laws and asked what would happen if Parliament fails to perform its duty. “The previous law will remain if there is no fresh lawmaking,” Ali Zafar replied.

During the hearing, the chief justice said that the president dissolves assembly on the advice of prime minister under article 58 however when a prime minister is facing a no-trust move, he could not recommend a dissolution.

The chief justice further remarked that there is no constitutional crisis in the country and apparently Article 95 of the Constitution is being violated. Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that the new election would cost billions.

PM’s counsel Imtiaz Siddiqui’s arguments

The counsel of the prime minister Advocate Imtiaz Siddiqui also argued before the apex court and said that courts have previously refrained from intervening into the Parliamentary affairs. “In Fazl Elahi case, the lawmakers were barred from voting and tortured but the court did not intervene,” he said while citing an example and termed Parliamentary affairs out of the domain of the court.

Read More: SUPREME COURT ADJOURNS NA SPEAKER’S RULING CASE TILL TOMORROW

The chief justice asked that those opposing the deputy speaker’s ruling are saying that leave grant could not be entertained after March 28. To this, the counsel said that the opposition did not challenge the deputy speaker over chairing the session and the latter did what he thought was right.

“The no-trust move was parliamentary process and no intervention could be made,” he said.

To this, the chief justice remarked that it is court that would decide on how much privilege is enjoyed by the Parliamentary proceedings.

To this, the counsel said that if speaker comes to know of a foreign conspiracy then he would act while using his prerogative to save the country. “If article 69 is read with article 127 it emerged that the parliamentary proceedings are being guarded and the court could not intervene into the matter,” he said and added that the deputy speaker cited decision from National Security Committee and no one could influence the body.

Naeem Bokhari presents minutes of  NSC meeting  

The counsel for speaker and deputy speaker Naeem Bokhari during his arguments spoke on point of order being taken in the assembly and said that the point of order could be taken at any time during the assembly proceedings