NA rejects SC ‘minority’ ruling on Punjab poll
The National Assembly on Thursday adopted a resolution declaring that parliament rejected a recent “minority” judgment of the Supreme Court wherein it ordered the authorities concerned that the election in Punjab should be held on May 14.
The lawmakers, in the resolution, also barred the prime minister and the federal cabinet from implementing the decision while urging the top court to form a full court to review the “rewriting” of the Constitution under Article 63-A.
The lower house of parliament expressed its concern on “undue judicial interference” in political matters. The lawmakers maintained that the recent judgment of the apex court was creating political instability in the country and paving the way for a division of the federating units.
The resolution, which was moved by Balochistan Awami Party's Khalid Magsi, further read that for bringing political and economic stability in Pakistan, the house considered that holding of the general elections at the same time throughout the country was the solution to all the prevailing problems.
“Parliament rejects the decision of the three-member minority bench and declares the decision of the majority bench is effective as per the Constitution and law,” it continued.
Also read: PM urges SC to review its decision on Punjab poll, constitute full bench
It added that the decision of the “minority has been imposed on the majority”.
A three-member SC bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar had announced the verdict on the PTI's petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) move to postpone the Punjab Assembly polls till October 8.
The chief justice announced that elections in Punjab would be held on May 14 as it declared the ECP’s decision “unconstitutional”.
The government utilised the parliament’s forum once again to convey in clear terms that it rejected the Supreme Court order.
It added that the verdict was in continuation with the National Assembly’s previous March 28 resolution, which supported the four-member bench of apex court’s decision in the suo motu case.
In the resolution, it was demanded that the decision of the four SC judges should be implemented and the higher judiciary should refrain itself from undue interference in political and administrative affairs.
The resolution read that most of the quarters had also demanded the formation of a full court but it was neither approved, nor was the position of other political parties heard except for one.
“Completely ignoring this clear resolution of parliament and the majority decision of the four judges of the Supreme Court, the three-member particular bench imposed a minority opinion, which is also a violation of the traditions, precedents and procedures of the Supreme Court,” it continued.
Through the resolution, the NA also expressed its grave concern over “the misinterpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution and its rewriting by the Supreme Court judgment.
It demanded that the full court of the SC should reconsider the matter.
The demand for a full-court hearing on Article 63-A stems from the government’s push for an appeal against the top court’s ruling in May 2022, wherein it ruled by a majority of 3-2 decision that defecting lawmakers’ votes could not be counted, was still pending for hearing.
The top court’s decision last year had led to changing the Punjab government back then.
The then Punjab chief minister Hamza Shehbaz was elected to the post with the help of 24 votes of PTI dissident MPAs. However, the SC decision on the presidential reference seeking the interpretation of Article 63-A had paved the way for PTI candidate Chaudhry Parvez Elahi to become the new Punjab CM.
Through the resolution, the House also expressed concerns on the CJP “disregarding” a decision by Justice Qazi Faez Isa-led three-member bench, which while hearing a case examining the granting of additional 20 marks to Hafiz-e-Quran pre-medical candidates for admission into MBBS/BDS courses, had issued an order to halt all suo motu hearings.
After initially dismissing it through a circular issued by the SC registrar, the CJP formed a new six-member bench, which overode Justice Isa’s decision and 'closed’ the matter in just five minutes.
The NA resolution expressed its grave concerns on the circular as well as the constitution of the six-member bench and supported Justice Isa’s decision.
The resolution supported the decision of the Justice Isa-led bench not to hear cases filed under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution till the amendments to the SC Rules were introduced.
The House ruled that the SC’s actions were clearly against the traditions and precedents of the top court.
“That is why it [decision] is unacceptable,” it concluded.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif attended the proceedings for a brief period and left soon after the resolution was passed.
Federal Benazir Income Support Programme Minister Shazia Marri said the NA respected the courts.
However, she added that the courts should also understand the "trichotomy of power" and comprehend that every institution needed to be paid a certain amount of respect.
She added that prosperity and peace was required in the country rather than derailing democracy and maneuvering for a particular party.
She described PTI chairman and deposed premier Imran Khan as a "narcissist", claiming that he only loved himself and not his family.
Public Accounts Committee Chairman Noor Alam Khan appealed to the CJP to conduct an audit of the SC. He continued that there had been no audit of the apex court unlike other institutions and salaries were increased under no law.
Leader of the Opposition Raja Riaz said the provincial assemblies of Punjab and K-P were dissolved by the PTI-led governments to satisfy the ego of Imran.
He continued that he felt proud that he had initiated the move for a no-confidence motion for calling "a spade a spade".
Also read: After Punjab polls verdict, PTI moves SC for elections in K-P
However, PTI MNA Mohsin Leghari opposed the resolution, complaining that he was not allowed the opportunity to express his views on it.
He maintained that the Constitution did not permit the House to speak against the judiciary.
He added that by setting such a wrong precedent, the MNAs were collectively attracting contempt of court proceedings against themselves.
"The cases being heard by the courts cannot be discussed here," he added.
To this, the speaker pointed out that cases that had already been decided could be taken up for discussion in the House.
Leghari replied that if the judiciary had to be discussed in the NA, it should be written in the Constitution that the issue of judges could be taken up by the House.
(With input from APP)