The dismissal of a vote of no confidence against the then-prime minister Imran Khan by the deputy speaker of the National Assembly on April 3 was controversial from the start. Now that it has decided to overturn that decision, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has released a lengthy judgment outlining its justifications. The deputy speaker’s constitutional obligation was clearly broken by dismissing the no-confidence vote, according to Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial. The court argues that because the decision was “not the result of a vote in the National Assembly, rather it was a unilateral decision” by the deputy speaker, it did not qualify for protection of the internal procedures of parliament under Article 69(1). The ruling by Qasim Suri set off a series of circumstances that would have allowed the former prime minister to avoid the no-trust vote for breaking assembly norms. The court has also made it clear that because the cypher’s text was only “partially given,” it did not see it. The court argues that any fact-finding commission is permissible if it can be established by an act of parliament or the federal government.
The supplemental comment by Justice Mazhar Miankhel was much harsher, stating that the president, the former prime minister, the speaker, the deputy speaker, and the former law minister had all broken the sacred trust that came with exercising authority. Parliamentarians should consider whether these infractions constitute high treason under Article 6 of the Constitution before deciding whether to keep the door open for such unlawful conduct or whether to take “appropriate steps to stop such like mess in future,” according to his suggestion. Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah responded by declaring that the federal government is preparing to take action against Imran Khan in accordance with Article 6. Additionally, he has called for Alvi to step down as president, while PML-N Senator Afnanullah Khan has filed a motion in the Senate calling for Article 6 proceedings to be brought against the five individuals identified by Justice Miankhel. It would be dangerous to prosecute PTI members under Article 6 because not all constitutional violations constitute treason, according to legal experts. Although there may be additional sanctions for constitutional violations, using Article 6 is a precedent that should be avoided.
The PTI has condemned the comprehensive verdict as was to be expected. Former law minister Fawad Chaudhry claims that judges and generals make judgments behind closed doors and that the nation is now prepared for a revolution, whether by ballot or like Sri Lanka. The PTI leadership’s determination on continuously contesting the Supreme Court ruling is not a positive sign for democracy, and it does nothing to support the legal and legislative systems. The detailed judgment is “full of contradictions,” according to the PTI, which had previously said that the brief order “was replete of inaccuracies.” The party is impugning the court’s judicial competence by doing this. The PTI’s refusal to accept this judgment would have much more negative effects on the nation’s democracy. The National Security Committee’s remarks made twice during the PTI administration and once under the incumbent, should have put an end to the myth of the foreign conspiracy. Additionally, the DG ISPR has stated unequivocally that there was no proof of any sort of conspiracy. After losing a constitutional dispute in the Supreme Court, the PTI chose to criticise the judiciary rather than engage in any introspection and political rethinking.
