The ruling of Punjab Assembly’s Deputy Speaker is ultra vires and devoid of constitutional writ. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ousted Hamza Shehbaz and pronounced Chaudhry Pervez Elahi as the provincial Chief Minister. In a 11-page judgment, the three-member bench after a prolonged and heated debate at the august house among the litigants stood the ground of law and constitution, and closely scrutinised the impugned ruling. In doing so, the apex court exhibited utmost magnanimity. It heard the case in extreme patience and did not get sidetracked even with an uncourteous attitude of some of the plaintiff counsels. This was so because the honourable bench wanted to dispense justice in a matter that pertained to the rule of law, parliamentary supremacy and the writ of
the Constitution.
The short order made it mandatory for CM-elect Elahi to be sworn in before 11.30 pm, and this reflected the soundness of the judgment in all humility. The Court also directed that the decision may be instantly communicated to the Governor and ordered that if the provincial head of state refused to administer the oath, then the same be undertaken by the President. This is an unprecedented moment where the honourable judges thought it appropriate in their considered opinion to implement the verdict in totality and in real time.
The proceedings were, however, marred with boycott from the counsels of Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker and PPP, who pleaded for a full court reference and were seen struggling to make a valid point on behalf of their submission. The premise of the Chief Justice and brother Judges, however, was that the Constitution did not allow for obstruction of governance; hence the proceedings cannot be delayed. The demand for constituting a full court would have prolonged the hearing till September, and the Court saw it as untenable.
The one-point query and concern of the Court was to inquire and get debriefed from the respective lawyers, especially of the Deputy Speaker’s office, on whether, according to the Constitution, the voting instructions were given by the parliamentary party or the party head. The respondents were unable to make a point, and fell flat. The bench categorically questioned as many times, where the word parliamentary leader was used, to which PTI’s Barrister Ali Zafar cited that in 2002, the Political Parties Act mentioned the term of ‘parliamentary party’, and thus the parliamentary is solely entitled to call the shots in the legislative affairs of the assembly.
As the decision got delayed, it gave birth to a windmill of rumours. The assembling of political activists from both sides of the divide and scenes of fencing the court building with barbed wires were unnerving. This was so as the PML-N leadership took to Twitter and warned that the party will come out with a vehement protest strategy. Last but not least, another social media jibe from a PPP personality hinting at truncating and rewriting the powers of the judiciary under the spirit of Article 191 was a clear indication that all is not well in the Republic. It is time to abide with the spirit of the law and let the buck move on the path of reconciliation and stability.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 27th, 2022.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ