Sherry Rehman, Federal Minister for Climate Change, said on Thursday that President Arif Alvi should resign after the verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the ruling of the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly. Sherry Rehman said that the verdict of the apex proved to be the last nail in the coffin of the regime change conspiracy narrative. The PPP leader also accused the President of protecting the interests of Pakistan.

Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) instead of the constitution of the country. Earlier, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said that the Supreme Court’s detailed judgement on the Vote of No Confidence exposes the lies and propaganda of indulged in by Imran Khan.

The Prime Minister said in a tweet that Imran Khan's attempt to undermine the constitution and fabricate the lie of "regime change" is "utterly shameful."

The premier also urged everyone to read the verdict of the apex court.Meanwhile, federal ministers said that the Supreme Court verdict on the Deputy Speaker’s ruling about the no-confidence motion has buried the narrative of foreign conspiracy to oust the government of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

While addressing a press conference along with Qamar Zaman Kaira, he said that the Supreme Court has declared the dissolution of the National Assembly by the president as unconstitutional and the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly gave the ruling with malafide intent.

The verdict has exposed the true face of PTI Chairman Imran Khan, he added. The minister further said that Imran Khan put the entire country at stake just to save his rule. It merits mention that the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a detailed judgement in a suo moto notice case on the ruling by the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly under Article 5 of the Constitution qua voting on a no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, announced a short order on April 07, 2022, on the ruling passed on April 03, 2022 by the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly on a No-confidence Motion.

The court, in its ruling, disposed of the suo motu proceedings and the related constitution petitions and declared that since the ruling and detailed reasons of the deputy speaker and the advice of the PM to the President to dissolve the NA have been declared unconstitutional, the dissolution of the NA by the President had no legal effect. "The NA stands restored with immediate effect (in fact, it is deemed to have been in existence at all times).

The Speaker is, therefore, directed to convene a sitting of the NA forthwith and conduct the business of the House as per the Orders of the Day issued for 03.04.2022.

"The judgement stated," In fact, in our considered view, the restoration of NA will strengthen the democratic norms of our political system under the Constitution, namely, the parliamentary form of government.

It does not concern the Court whether the RNC against the PM succeeds or fails. Our foremost priority is the maintenance of constitutional order in the country, which can only be achieved if the NA is restored and permitted to perform its functions under the Constitution. However, a NA that operates merely as a rubber stamp for the government of the day does not serve the country.

The governance of a nation can only be dynamic and efficient if it is managed by a government that is held to account by a strong opposition. However, the importance of a healthy opposition is frequently overlooked in our legal and political discourse.Nevertheless, we find the account in Halsbury’s Laws of England (Volume 20, 2014) on the indispensability of the Opposition to a flourishing democracy.

"It may be noticed that to prevent the decline into rule by oligarchy and to uphold the cherished principle of transparent governance, the presence of the Opposition in the NA (and the Senate) is necessary." The crucial role of the opposition in a democracy was also explained by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Resolution 1601 (adopted on 23.01.2008).

The judgement read: "The Opposition Parties are a diverse combination of political parties, whereas the respondents are backed by the largest party in the NA." They have huge clout by virtue of their sheer numbers and so can play a decisive role, whether in the government or the Opposition, in order to perform their constitutional obligations faithfully and diligently so as to serve the people of Pakistan, to whom they have made a solemn pledge under the Constitution. "

However, such consequential relief may be denied by the Court if it can be shown that it will perpetuate injustice or will not be just and proper in the circumstances. The concurring judgement of Justice Ajmal Mian (as he was then) in the Nawaz Sharif vs. President of Pakistan case is referred to.Although Justice Ajmal Mian’s observations were made in the context of fundamental rights, we are of the view that they apply equally to situations where constitutional rights have been violated."

"His comments," the judgement noted, "also reinforce our view (stated in para88 above) that in situations of proven public interest, the Court may deny consequential relief." Nevertheless, in the instant proceedings, learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to persuade us that restoring the NAwill either perpetuate injustice, be unjust and improper in the circumstances, or irreparably harm any public interest.

The order further stated that "even being a court of law, we must decide matters strictly in accordance with the Constitution and the law and not on the basis of expediency or individual perception." Therefore, if today we maintain the dissolution of NA, which has been brought about by the illegal actions of the Deputy Speaker, PM, and President, we will effectively be disobeying the Constitution, specifically Article 95(2). As custodians of the Constitution [ref: 167],

In the matter of PLD 2011 SC 963) at para 20, the Court cannot lend its support to any extra-constitutional measure unless a compelling public interest established by evidence and floating on the face of the record so demands, it added.

Credit:
Independent News Pakistan-INP