What did the Supreme Court say about the secret correspondence in the detailed decision on the rolling of Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri?
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, while issuing a detailed judgment in the National Assembly on the issue of rolling against the opposition’s no-confidence motion by Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri, clarified that the full text of the secret cipher was presented before the bench during the entire case. Neither was nor was the PTI able to provide evidence of external conspiracy. A five-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, passed a unanimous decision. Declaring the move by the Speaker of the National Assembly to reject the no-confidence motion against PM Imran Khan unconstitutional, a brief decision was taken to convene a meeting of the National Assembly on April 9 to restore the Assemblies and vote on the no-confidence motion. The reasons for which are stated in the detailed judgment. According to the decision, the no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister could not be voted in the Assembly due to the rolling of the Deputy Speaker and the court took steps to protect the Constitution in the country. The announcement of the unconstitutional dissolution of the National Assembly pushed the people illegally towards the general elections and created a constitutional crisis in the country which affected every citizen.
Controversial foreign correspondence has been discussed in detail in the detailed decision of the Supreme Court. According to the court, the then government did not show the full text of the cipher to the court during the proceedings. Some parts of this cipher were presented in the arguments.
“We welcome the decision of the public prosecutor not to disclose the full text of the cipher as its text was not even mentioned in the Deputy Speaker’s Rolling Stone and it was moved before the court,” the court wrote. It would be inappropriate to use the defense in defense of rejection. ”The court ruling said the cipher was linked to diplomatic relations and national security issues. “The executive has to respond to these matters in accordance with policy and political requirements,” the ruling said. The court acknowledged that the court had limited jurisdiction to review government decisions on national security issues. No evidence was presented to the judicial bench or the National Assembly that included the names of the members involved in the alleged conspiracy or that other members of the Assembly were part of a no-confidence motion. No evidence of pressure or any other kind of effort was given for this. According to the important point in the court decision, the suggestion of inquiry into the matter in the roll of the Deputy Speaker proves that the Deputy Speaker admitted that he had an external conspiracy. The court wrote that despite receiving the cipher on March 7, the government did not conduct any investigation into the matter. A reference to its text was made in the National Assembly on March 28 and March 31. The matter was initiated by the Federal Law Minister in the National Assembly. The decision to set up a commission to investigate the alleged external conspiracy by the government on April 2, according to the court ruling, also indicates that the deputy speaker’s side. There was insufficient evidence to rule out a no-confidence motion for national security reasons.
“How did the deputy speaker know that there was a conspiracy without reading the cipher?”
“We have only information about the alleged conspiracy in the form of the Deputy Speaker’s opinions and concerns, but he did not claim in his rolling or any of the reasons that the cipher This proves that the members of the opposition parties, along with a foreign state, brought a no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister and his government. ‘ The text and implications of the letter should be debated in the National Assembly, but they rejected it without listening to any member of the National Assembly, and without a vote of no confidence, on the basis of a statement containing allegations by the federal minister. In doing so, the Deputy Speaker not only ignored Article 95 of the Constitution but also gave a ruling on Article 5 which was beyond his jurisdiction and jurisdiction. Make decisions, not just speculate. The court wrote that there was no legal precedent for the court to take suo motu notice in defense of national sovereignty and national security and in the absence of evidence, the court had no jurisdiction to conduct such an inquiry. The note reads on the cipher, “It should be noted that by the time the Deputy Speaker gave the roll call, he had not read the cipher text because it was coded.” We are surprised that without reading the cipher text. How did the Deputy Speaker know that there was a conspiracy and who did it?
‘Deputy Speaker to vote or debate’
The court ruling said it was clear that the roll call by the deputy speaker on April 3 was illegal. The last point should have been debated and then the vote should have been taken but they did not take any of them and rejected the no-confidence motion declaring it unconstitutional. According to the court, Article 5 of the Constitution has nothing to do with the business of the National Assembly. According to the court, any violation of this article should be referred to a court with evidence where the accused should be given an opportunity to be heard. “In this case, they were members of opposition parties who were accused of conspiring with a foreign state.”
According to the court decision, because the rolling of the Deputy Speaker was illegal, the Prime Minister’s proposal to dissolve the Assembly and the President’s order to dissolve the Assembly have also lost their constitutional status. It does not mean that the no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister succeeds or fails. ”Our first priority is to maintain the constitutional order in the country, which is possible only if the National Assembly is restored. So that it can work under the constitution.
Additional Note by Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Mian Khel
Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Mian Khel in his additional note wrote that Article 69 of the Constitution does not completely remove the jurisdiction of the National Assembly on internal matters. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Mian Khel wrote that if the Speaker would take steps against the rules which would hamper the work of Parliament, they would not have full constitutional protection. According to Justice Mazhar Alam Khan, “Once the vote on the no-confidence motion was decided, then the Speaker had no power or legal authority to abstain from voting or to move the motion without voting.” “This one step, which is unconstitutional, was enough for the court to intervene,” Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Mian Khel wrote. How can such a one-sided move by a person in office be stopped? ”Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Mian Khel wrote. There should be consequences for the violation of the law and the law should take its course. But whether Article 6 of the Constitution applies to these measures or not, it is up to the MPs to decide whether to pave the way for such unconstitutional measures in the future. Leave or take a concrete step.