Supreme Court admits PML-N, PTI petitions against NA Speaker's ruling

Court will hear the petitions on June 6 under the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday admitted for hearing petitions filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) against the ruling of  Speaker National Assembly over the disqualification of the Prime Minister, Express News reported.

The petitions, filed on May 28, after Speaker National Assembly Fehmida Mirza had declared the Prime Minister did not stand disqualified despite being convicted for contempt of court.

Petitions will be heard by a three member bench under the Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chuadhry on June 6.

PML-N’s petition was filed to the through MNA Khawaja Muhammad Asif. Asif has made Gilani and the Law ministry secretary respondents in the petition.

An earlier report in the The Express Tribune had revealed that the main points of the petition stated that the National Assembly Speaker’s ruling was tantamount to subverting the principles of democracy, equality, and the independence of the judiciary.

According to a handout issued by the party, the petitioned brought into question whether the right of a fair trial also mandates a corresponding duty to abide by the verdict of a fair trial, which cannot be violated by the NA speaker.

It argued that the ruling cannot be protected under Article 69 of the Constitution “by any legal stretch of imagination”.

PTI’s petition

PTI filed the petition in the Supreme Court through senior lawyer of the court, Hamid Khan.

The petition sought replies from four respondents: Dr Mirza, Gilani, federation of Pakistan and Election Commission of Pakistan.

It argued that decision of Speaker National Assembly was unconstitutional, void and in violation of fundamental rights of access to justice and independence of judiciary. It further prayed that ECP be allowed to decide the question of disqualification of the Prime Minister, as having been deemed to be have been referred to it under Article 63 (2) and (3).