Home Latest News Qasim Suri’s No-Confidence Dismissal Breached Constitutional Duty: Supreme Court

Qasim Suri’s No-Confidence Dismissal Breached Constitutional Duty: Supreme Court

In detailed judgment, apex court rules deputy speaker’s decision allowed Imran Khan to claim ‘constitutionally repugnant’ outcome of avoiding no-trust vote

by Staff Report

Farooq Naeem—AFP

The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday issued its detailed judgment—spanning 111 pages—on the reasons behind its decision to set aside the April 3 ruling by then-National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri to dismiss the no-confidence motion against then-prime minister Imran Khan.

Authored by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, the verdict stresses that Suri’s actions “breached his constitutional duty and mandate to put the RNC [resolution of no-confidence] to vote before the NA under Article 95(2) of the Constitution” to allow “the P.M. to claim the constitutionally repugnant outcome of avoiding the RNC without a vote by the NA.” Noting the court had taken suo motu notice with an intent to preserve constitutional order in the country, the judgment said that Suri’s April 3 ruling also failed to qualify for protection of the internal proceedings of Parliament under Article 69(1), as it was a “unilateral decision” that was not a result of any vote in the National Assembly.

According to the judgment the Deputy Speaker’s ruling and the actions of the P.M. and the president “defeated the right of the opposition parties to test their voting strength in support of the RNC and if successful, to form the next government in exercise of their fundamental right under Article 17(2) of the Constitution.” Their collective actions, it stressed, had left the public without an elected legislature and executive, denying the people of Pakistan their fundamental right to be governed by a constitutional parliamentary government.

“Rather than following the constitutional course prescribed in Article 91(4) of the Constitution for the election of a new prime minister, the people were unlawfully forced into an election due to the prima facie unconstitutional dissolution of the NA at the hands of the Deputy Speaker and the P.M. A constitutional crisis was, therefore, created in the country on April 3,” it emphasized, adding that the court’s primary motivation was maintenance of constitutional order, which could only be achieved if the assembly were restored.

Cypher

In his ruling, Justice Bandial also referred to the so-called cypher that Imran Khan has claimed to be “proof” of a foreign conspiracy to oust the PTI-led government. Explaining that the text of the cypher was not shown to the apex court during proceedings, it acknowledged the partial disclosure of its contents in the deputy speaker’s ruling.

“We appreciate the reluctance of learned counsel to share the cypher with the court and to make a full disclosure of its contents. Firstly, because the cypher did not form part of the material quoted by the Deputy Speaker in his ruling and in his detailed reasons given in support thereof. Therefore, it may have been inappropriate to use it before us to justify the dismissal of the RNC for alleged unconstitutionality and for refusing a vote on it in the NA as mandated by Article 95(2) of the Constitution,” it states. “Secondly, the cypher is a secure internal communique from a Pakistani diplomat stationed abroad to the concerned officer(s) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Allegedly it records the perception of a foreign state official about the potential implications of the success or failure of the RNC against the P.M. Therefore, it appears that the cypher primarily concerns international relations and matters involving national security considerations,” it said, stressing that these subjects called for a response by the executive based on its policy and political imperatives.

Noting that the detailed reasons for the deputy speaker’s ruling accepted that allegations against the opposition parties require a probe, as it “acknowledges that the material shown to him was either incomplete, insufficient or inconclusive,” the court questioned why the PTI-led government had not investigated the cypher’s contents after receiving it on March 7 or referred to its contents during NA proceedings. “Such an inquiry into facts can, in the first place, be carried out either by a commission constituted by the federal government under the 2017 Act or by a specialized commission constituted under an Act of Parliament or an ordinance,” reads the judgment, adding that the PTI’s plea that the apex court take suo motu over the defense of national security and allegations of breach of sovereignty were without precedent. “Equally, in the absence of evidence prima facie demonstrating the plea of the respondents, the Court lacks the jurisdiction to launch into a roving inquiry,” it states.

The court also noted that opposition members who filed the notice were granted leave to move the no-confidence motion against the then-P.M. on March 28, invoking the constitutional right and obligation for there to be a vote under Article 95(2). That right cannot be defeated or curtailed except by a vote on the floor of the Assembly, the ruling stressed, adding: “Since the deputy speaker’s ruling unilaterally refused the right of vote granted by the Constitution, no immunity under Article 69(1) attaches to it and the same can be reviewed by the court.”

Additional notes

In an additional note, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel—who retired on July 13—maintained that the exercise of authority was a sacred trust that had been violated by the president, then-P.M., then-speaker, then-deputy speaker and then-law minister. “Whether these acts attract Article 6 of the Constitution (high treason) is also left open to be determined by the parliamentarians to ponder should they leave open the doors for such unconstitutional acts or take suitable measures to stop such like mess in future,” he said.

The elected representatives of the people were prevented from voting on the resolution and this blatant transgression of the Constitution must have consequences and the law must take its course, he added.

In another additional note, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel described the actions of the deputy speaker as biased, adding that if the court had permitted fresh elections on its premise, it would be tantamount to giving license to an authority to misuse the extraordinary power of the doctrine of necessity. Lamenting that Pakistan had already experienced misuse of the doctrine of necessity by the hands of unconstitutional forces, he said this had never achieved the desired results.

Rather, he stressed, democracy had suffered through the misuse of the doctrine of necessity. He said the courts must discourage every action contrary to the Constitution and democratic norms.

Related Articles

Leave a Comment