The Supreme Court on October 23 had directed all petitioners - Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and PTI leader Ishaq Khan Khakwani to inform in writing if the application challenging PM’s eligibility was filed in an individual capacity or as representatives of their parties.
It was also observed that there may be implications if the petitioners represented their parties in this case.
Irfan Qadir, counsel for Khakwani confirmed with The Express Tribune that he will submit in the court on Wednesday that his client was representing PTI in the case.
The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Acting Chief Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, will take up the petitions.
The petitioners have claimed that the premier had first asked army chief General Raheel Sharif to act as a ‘mediator’ between the government and protesting parties – the PTI and Pakistan Awami Tehreek – and to serve as a ‘guarantor’ to any agreement. Later, the premier denied making any such request to the army chief in the National Assembly.
However, the Attorney General of Pakistan on November 1 had contended that the prime minister’s alleged controversial statement in Parliament was completely protected under the Constitution.
He added that Article 66 provided a complete bar from calling into question the proceedings of Parliament.
COMMENTS (21)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
-(1)1714546409-0/SLB-(2)-(1)1714546409-0-270x192.webp)
1714370039-0/ojwilson-(1)1714370039-0-270x192.webp)
-(1)1714458896-0/ASP-(2)-(1)1714458896-0-270x192.webp)
-(1)1714463604-0/Untitled-design-(4)-(1)1714463604-0-270x192.webp)
KK Kool and Samina, looks like PTI media wing at work :) for future please check if a member of your team has not already posted same message. This is second time I have caught this error and people blame PMLN supporters for being "paid supporters".
Where is the sanctity of august parliament if anyone said anything and did not mean. Isn’t it mockery of so called august institute. PM must be accountable to nation. He is PM not a common man who deny anything said in Parliament to representatives of whole nation. He should have dignity and moral courage to accept if he asked his Army. After all it’s Pakistan’s Army and nation has always looked towards its Army in days of need.
@Jibran: Your comment proves your ignorance about the Honorable Judge.
@KK Cool I think you have are not understanding my point. Here is another try. It does not matter what PM said or Not in assembly as there is no way to know what COAS said to PM in closed door that is why there is no case. Further, challenging what is spoken in assembly is stupid because it will create barriers to how lawmakers speak their hearts out. There is no case here legally and PM will not be disqualified as much as you want.
Would it b something Javeed Hashmi unveiled? "A justice is with us" Imran Khan
Can I slap any one as long as Article 66 applies (in the parliament). Please please please.
@Blithe: U r telling a Cricket World cup Winner to learn form Misbah. Wake up dude.
If as per many article 66 is applied...no one can question any one what they speak during Parliament session, let some one try to criticize judiciary or any Judge & see if application of article 66 stands or not.....
I think the PM should also be tried for: 1. Money laundering 2. Asghar Khan's case 3. Attack on Supreme Court 4. Pioneer of starting Chaanga Maanga politics
@H Chaudhry: Then where is the sanctity of august parliament if anyone said anything and did not mean. Isn't it mockery of so called august institute. PM must be accountable to nation. He is PM not a common man who deny anything said in Parliament to representatives of whole nation. He should have dignity and moral courage to accept if he asked his Army. After all it's Pakistan's Army and nation has always looked towards its Army in days of need.
Rule of law to be considered and then supremacy of law to be followed, according to rule of law no one is above the law and all are equal before law whereas supremacy of law indicates law is supreme to try all illegality in any situation so SC has jurisdiction. SC can also set aside any illegality of parliament so immunity does not means anyone can be above the law.
The said Article 66 clrealy states that ''Subject to the Constitution and to the rules of procedure of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), there shall be freedom of speech in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and no member shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)''. It means that there is freedom of speech for the members. However in my opinion, the phrase ''Subject to constitution'' implies that the case is admissible in the court of law under Article 62(f).
What a waste of time of the court. Completely bogus..
@Parved Be afraid of the day when "Court" start doing what it "Believe" is right! Sorry that is not how it works and NO COURT CANT DECIDE WHAT IS WRONG OR RIGHT, rather what is legal or illegal. This case will be dismissed because it is He Said She Said case, there is no way to tell who is lying since it was a close door meeting between 2 people. Neither COURT nor you can determine who is lying with out poof. Only good thing that may come out of this is that , Court will say STOP doing these Close door meetings.
@WeWill(lose) Law exists so Lawmakers in assembly can speak their hearts out with out a repercussion in the future. The case has no basis and in legal circles, SC taking this court is being considered a bad precedence for future for taking up every "He Said She Said" case. However, there is no way this case will go any further and will die as simply there is no legal basis. Further when you "Rather than Clarifying why the Fabrication was made", you are ASSUMING that indeed PM fabricated something. This is fine but this is your opinion. There is no way to Determine weather PM did or did not Fabricate because it was a close door meeting with two people. What if COAS is lying, what if ISPR is lying? How to know. Simply there is no way, hence, no case. It will be dismissed.
1)dear PM lied on the floor 2)then he didnot apologize to the nation and to the army. he is fit for being declared unfit as being a PM
Container khan trying to get to PM house through mouse hole. The guy has no dignity left ...
He should learn from Misbah on behaving in a dignified way ...
Proceedings in the NA are privileged under the constitution of Pakistan and no member can be held accountable for them. As far as truth is concerned its one mans word against another and the way qadri and immy left to meet the army chief suggests there was a lot more than meets the eye.
Here we go again with the PCO Jawad S Khawaja. The vultures guarding the meat.
Let us hope the Supreme Court musters the courage to do what is right .
Awesome, rather than clarifying why the fabrication was made the counsel is arguing that he has complete immunity. Anyone, who is more aware can shed some light that why this law exists.