ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan after consultations between 12 judges of the top court took suo moto notice of the ruling of the deputy speaker that rejected the no-confidence motion against then prime minister Imran Khan resulting in the dissolution of the National Assembly, said Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Monday.
During the hearing of the case seeking interpretation of Article 63-A, the chief justice said all the judges agreed that it was a constitutional matter that needed to be taken up by the court.
Justice Bandial said the top court does not take notices on whims and wishes, adding that the notice was taken because it was a constitutional matter.
The CJ was alluding to the ruling by Qasim Suri that had rejected the no-confidence motion against then prime minister Imran Khan citing a violation of Article 5. Imran used that ruling to dissolve the assembly. However, the SC struck down the ruling and restored the assembly and directed the speaker to hold voting on the vote of no-confidence.
During the hearing, CJ Bandial said the court wanted to give its decision on Article 63-A without delay. “The interpretation of Article 63-A was necessary for [strengthening] the parliamentary democracy,” the judge said, adding that the protection of the Constitution was the duty of this court.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan said the reference only pertained to the interpretation of the said article. “The interpretation is implanted in the centre or the province that does not concern this court,” he added. “The decision of the top court will be binding to all the parties,” he added.
PML-N lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan sought a delay in the hearing as he would return to Pakistan on May 15, but the bench asked him to return early as the case could not be delayed for that long.
The court said it will also listen to Azhar Siddique, the PTI counsel, after Babar Awan. Awan urged the court to read articles 62 and 63 together. The PTI leader said he would assist the court in the constitutional debate regarding the case.
The additional attorney general said that the attorney general also wanted to present his arguments in the case.