ISLAMABAD:The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing on the National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri’s ruling on vote of no-confidence and observed that the case was that of the violation of Article 95.

The SC five-member larger bench, headed by Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel heared the arguments by the counsels.

The CJP, who had taken a suo motu notice after the constitutional crisis emerging from the deputy speakers ruling, said that Article 69 of the Constitution exists, but what happened in the parliament on April 3 was unprecedented, adding if such incidents were allowed to happen, it will have devastating consequences.

CJP Bandial remarked that the case was that of the violation of Article 95 and and where there is a violation of the constitution, the Supreme Court can intervene. However, the chief justice said, that the Supreme Court respected the sanctity of the parliament.

CJP Bandial adjourned the case’s hearing till tomorrow (April 7, 2022) and said that they would resume hearing of the case early in the morning. The CJP while listing his queries asked Babar Awan, counsel for the ruling PTI, to defend the ruling, but in the light of the constitution.

The top judge remarked did the deputy speaker have the authority to give a ruling by ignoring the agenda and also without consulting the members. Could the speaker pronounce a ruling setting aside the constitutional process, the CJP asked.

Justice Bandial went on to ask what was the material on the basis of which Qasim Suri gave the ruling, and did he do so without bringing forth the facts? Justice Bandial also made it clear that before pronouncing verdict in the case, the court wanted to know what was the ‘conspiracy’ which prompted the deputy speaker to give the ruling.

He also sought from Awan the minutes of the National Security Committee (NSC) and Parliament’s Security Committee meetings. When PML-N’s lawyer pointed out to the court that situation in Punjab was not good either as voting for the election of provincial chief minister was being delayed, the CJP replied that the court would look into it in the end.

Babar Awan, counsel for the ruling PTI, argued that the case under review was not that of basic human rights, and it was incumbent upon each and every citizen to be loyal to the state. Awan said that lawyers representing the opposition parties had told the court that the deputy speaker’s ruling was unconstitutional and was given with a mala fide intent.

PTI’s lawyer said although they all prayed to the court to interpret articles 95 and 69 of the constitution, but none uttered a word on the interpretation of article 63-A. Babar Awan said that the constitution of Pakistan was different from other constitutions of the world since it was based on the Islamic ideology, which became the basis of two-nation theory, which ultimately resulted in the creation of Pakistan.

He objected that all the political parties are a party in this case except for MQM-P, PTM, Balochistan Awami Party and Jamaat-e-Islami and Rah-e-Haq party. He further said that the case is whether the NA speaker’s act was illegal. The political parties maintain that they have been declared traitors under Article 5 of the Constitution. The court was asked to interpret Article 2, he added. He said that “The court has been told that the deputy speaker’s ruling is malicious and unconstitutional. On the other side they have been termed traitors under Article 5.”

At this, CJP Bandial said that no one has been termed a traitor in regard with Article 5 but the action taken under Article 5 has been stated as treason. He said that the Constitution is such a document in which the clauses and sections are read together. Chief Justice Bandial said that no article can be seen separately but Article 95 have a special motive.