SC judges urge parliament to initiate Article 6 against Imran, President Alvi, others

Say 'high treason' be pursued against president, PTI chief and other party leaders for derailing no-trust motion

Hasnaat Malik July 14, 2022
A policeman walks past in front of the Supreme Court building in Islamabad, Pakistan, on November 28, 2019. (AFP/File)


Supreme Court Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel in his additional note on the SC’s judgement on the deputy speaker of the National Assembly’s ruling to dismiss the no-trust resolution against former prime minister Imran Khan has observed that the sacred trust of exercise of authority was violated by President Arif Alvi, ex-premier Imran and other Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leaders.

The apex court justice, who retired on Wednesday, urged the parliament to initiate action under Article 6 of the constitution, seeking the charge of high treason against President Alvi, PTI chief, former speaker of the assembly Asad Qaisar, former deputy speaker Qasim Suri and former law minister Fawad Chaudhry for violating trust by derailing the process of the no-confidence motion pursued against Imran Khan.

Justice Miankhel further added that to halt parliament’s right to pursue the process of the no-confidence motion and the decision to dissolve the assembly were against the spirit of the constitution.

Read No-confidence vote: Legal minds answer procedural questions

The former justice stated the foremost agenda of the constitution emphasises that the exercise of authority was "a sacred trust" and that can only be exercised through "the chosen representatives of the people".

He added such blatant transgression of the constitution must bear consequences and the law must take its course.

“Whether these acts attract Article 6 of the Constitution (high treason) is also left open to be determined by the parliamentarians to ponder; should they leave open the doors for such unconstitutional acts or take suitable measures to stop such mess in future?” Justice Miankhel questioned.

Likewise, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, in his additional note, observed the nation had witnessed digression from the constitution and from the directions of the apex court as the speaker had prolonged the proceedings of [the] National Assembly in order to “frustrate the constitutional and democratic process”.

"Such unconstitutional and undemocratic behaviour was unbecoming for a person holding one of the most prestigious constitutional offices,” said Justice Mandokhail, regarding the delaying tactics conducted by former speaker Asad Qaisar.

The top court's justice said that the former deputy speaker did not provide the right to reply to the allegations levelled by the former minister for law and parliamentary affairs, which undermined the authority and sovereignty of parliament.

Read More No evidence opposition colluded with foreign state, says SC


He furthered that the parliament was “lowered in dignity as well”.

The justice accused the former deputy speaker of mala fide and ultra vires act, adding that it was “beyond the mandate of the Constitution, which cannot be termed as procedural irregularity”.

The justice stated that such circumstances hindered judicial review of the ruling as it would constitute a breach of the privileges of parliament in terms of Article 69 of the Constitution.

“Keeping in view such an unconstitutional act committed by the deputy speaker, this court having the power to guard the constitutional provisions and to ensure supremacy and implementation of the Constitution and law, took a suo moto notice in order to avoid tyranny and mockery of law," the note read.


ali | 1 year ago | Reply

You as judges have lost your moral compass. What about actions against criminals PM CM who are roaming around free and running the country. It was on your watch that the ex pm is now living in London. Shame on you for not doing justice - Allah will get you -what expectation should a common person have from you - corrupt to the hilt

ARSLAN | 1 year ago | Reply

Why are you making bloody journalism by highlighting the dubious headnote. Note has no legal value and no legal binding. Only one traitor is existing in our state right now . Trial him .

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ