ISLAMABAD,(Parliament Times): The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday declared Deputy Speaker Dost Muhammad Mazari’s ruling in the Punjab Chief Minister’s election “illegal” and ruled that PTI’s candidate Pervez Elahi will be the new CM of the province.”We find that the understanding and implementation of the said short judgment as well as the provisions of Article 63A(1)(b) of the Constitution by the Deputy Speaker, Provincial Assembly of Punjab, Lahore (Respondent No.1) was patently incorrect and erroneous and cannot be sustained,” said the order. It added that the act also “subverted” the governance of Punjab.
“As a result, the Ruling dated 22.07.2022 issued by Respondent No.1, Deputy Speaker, Punjab Assembly is set aside and declared to be void, without lawful authority and of no legal effect,” said the Supreme Court in a 11-page short order.
The order then declared Pervez Elahi as the duly elected chief minister of Punjab as it ruled that he had obtained 186 votes compared to Hamza’s 179.
The order also declared that the oath of office administered to Hamza was “without lawful authority and of no legal effect”.”Likewise all acts, deeds and things attendant and consequent upon such oath including but not limited to the notification of Respondent No.2 (Hamza Shahbaz) and the formation and swearing in of the Cabinet on his advice is also declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect,” said the order. The three-member bench — comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Muneeb Akhtar — also ordered Punjab Governor Baligh ur Rehman to administer the oath to Elahi at 11:30pm, adding that if he refuses to perform his duties, President Arif Alvi will administer the oath. The verdict was announced after a three-hour delay, CJP Bandial had first said that the judgment would be issued at 5:45pm and later it was scheduled to be announced at 7:30pm. But the judgment was announced at around 9pm. The proceedings went on for three days — Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday — as lawyers from all the parties presented their arguments.
Elahi — who had been defeated by Hamza Shahbaz on July 22 during the Punjab CM’s election after 10 PML-Q votes were rejected by Deputy Speaker Mazari — had challenged the ruling in the SC.The SC formed a three-member bench — headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and including Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ijazul Ahsan — to hear the case, but the coalition government objected to it and demanded a full court take up the matter as they did not want “bench-fixing”.
However, after hearing arguments from all sides for nearly eight hours on Monday, the SC decided not to form a full court bench, saying that the same bench would hear the case.As the SC decided not to form a full bench, the ruling coalition and the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) decided to boycott the apex court’s hearing.Irfan Qadir, lawyer for the deputy speaker, told the bench that his client had told him to not be a part of the proceedings as a country-wide boycott of the judiciary is being observed.Qadir told the SC that he would challenge the apex court’s decision relating to the full court — wherein the top court decided to not form a full bench to hear the case.Following Qadir, PPP lawyer Farooq H Naek came to the rostrum and informed the CJP that he would not be part of the proceedings.At this, the CJP told him that he “is not a party in the case”.The CJP said that “no legal” grounds were presented before the court; arguments were presented only regarding the party head’s directions; the court arrived.
at the conclusion that in the current case, there was no need for a full bench.
“I will change my opinion only when concrete reasons are given.”
CJP Bandial said the real question was who could give directions to party lawmakers. The constitution clearly states that the parliamentary party will give directions to MPs, he said.
“There is no need for further arguments in this case. We will give priority to wrapping up this case as soon as possible,” he said. CJP Bandial said that forming a full court was tantamount to unnecessary delay.
“The formation of a full court and then hearing of the case could have been delayed till September as leaves are being taken in the court.” Meanwhile, the top court sought assistance on the matter relating to directions by the party head or a parliamentary party.