IHC tosses out PTI plea on resignations

ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday rejected the petition against the approval of resignations of PTI MNAs in phases.

IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah remarked that the notification of the then National Assembly deputy speaker Qasim Suri was declared unconstitutional in an earlier judgment.

He added that an earlier verdict had mentioned that the NA speaker would decide the matter and there was nothing that the court could do.

Hearing the PTI’s petition, the judge noted that the court had decided not to meddle into political affairs.

PTI’s lawyer Faisal Chaudhry noted that the IHC chief justice had never interfered in the affairs of parliament.

Read PTI chief not out of the woods yet

“We also respect parliament, but it cannot be that the resignations be accepted in phases. If it has to accept the resignations, it must do so of all PTI 123 lawmakers at once,” he argued.

The judge recalled that in 2014, there were 34 PTI members who had resigned. He added that a verdict was given back then on what would be the approval process if an elected representative decided to quit.

The lawyer told the court that Suri was working as acting speaker at that time who had accepted the 123 resignations.

He added that of them, only 11 had been accepted.

The IHC CJ remarked that he would not instruct the NA speaker to accept the resignations.

He added that the PTI should place the court’s decision before the speaker to have their resignations accepted.

The PTI lawyer said that the speaker was from a minority, and that was why the party did not approach him.

The judge noted that this mindset needed to be changed and parliament must be respected.

He further remarked that the speaker must have accepted the resignations of 11 MNAs after satisfying himself.

“This satisfaction of the speaker cannot be challenged in court,” he added.
Justice Minallah remarked that the PTI should send one MNA of the party  to the party to the NA speaker at a time. He further observed that there should be no hesitation in sending PTI members to the speaker.

The PTI lawyer replied that the party had approached the court only because of the “hesitation”.

Justice Minallah remarked that the then deputy speaker could not have accepted the resignations collectively as the move was contrary to the Constitution and court decision.

“It is an admitted fact that the [then] deputy speaker did not approve the resignations collectively in the prescribed manner,” he added.

The IHC CJ further inquired that until the resignations of the assembly members were accepted, was it not their duty to represent the people in parliament.
He noted that each member who quit should appear before the speaker individually and confirm their resignation.

The court also noted that there was no need for forming a larger bench.
The PTI lawyer said that if elections were to be conducted, they should be held in all 123 constituencies.

The IHC chief justice asked him did he know  how much money was spent in holding an election.

“People elect their representatives for five years. It doesn’t seem right that whenever the lawmakers feel like it they step down and then contest the elections again,” he added.

Separately, the IHC overturned the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’s (Pemra) notification banning the live broadcast of PTI chairman and deposed premier Imran Khan's speeches.

In a three-page written decision in Imran's petition issued by the IHC CJ, the court said  TV channels were bound to stop broadcasting of prohibited content under the delay system.

It added that the Supreme Court had stopped TV channels from broadcasting prohibited content otherwise Pemra could take action against them.
The court also said that the watchdog's counsel could not satisfy how the ban could be imposed under Section 27 of the Pemra Ordinance.

The IHC noted that Pemra should ensure effective implementation of the Supreme Court's decision.

It added that if the delay mechanism was not followed, action should be taken against the channel as per law.

The PTI chairman had challenged the Pemra notification issued on August 20.
In another development, the IHC  ordered Imran to cooperate with the investigation into the terrorism case registered against him for threatening a female judge and police officials.

The court restrained the police from submitting a challan to the trial court and asked for a report on the progress of the investigation by September 15 at the next hearing.

The court asked the investigating officer to take the PTI chief’s statement and decide whether there was a case or not.

The IHC chief justice and Justice Saman Rifat Imtiaz heard the plea to quasment of the terrorism case filed against Imran for threatening a female judge.

The PTI chief’s lawyer Barrister Salman Safdar told the court that the police had added new provisions in the terrorism case against his client.

He requested the court to bar the police from taking any disciplinary action against his client until next week  whether or not a crime was committed.

He submitted an application stating that to cover up the fundamental flaws in the prosecution’s story and frustrate the petitioner, additional offences under Sections 186, 506, 504 and 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code had been added subsequently to the case.

“This addition is most unfortunate as there is no justification to add the said offences after quashing has been sought on specific grounds as mentioned in ground (A) of the main petition.

These offences have been incorporated not only to frustrate the process but also amount to abusing the due process of law.

There is a clear indication that these proceedings lack fairness and must be struck down with full force as being illegal and unlawful,” read the application.

The court inquired if the police had submitted a challan against Imran. Advocate General Jahangir Jadoon said  the investigation of the case had come to a halt as the police were not being given access to the PTI chairman.

He added that this case was linked to one against Imran's aide Dr Shahbaz Gill.
The IHC CJ noted that a cop standing in uniform was the “state”.

"Everyone should have confidence in the system. The law will take its own course,” he remarked.

The judge observed that there was no need to form a joint investigation team for the case as the only evidence was a speech.

The hearing was adjourned till September 15.