ISLAMABAD    -    The federation’s counsel Fri­day submitted that if the Su­preme Court strikes down the amendments in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO), 1999 then every stat­ute passed by the Parliament will be challenged under Arti­cle 184(3) of the constitution.

A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Jus­tice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah heard the former prime minister Im­ran Khan’s petition against the amendments in the NAO, 1999.

Justice Mansoor questioned that is there a case where a person becomes member of the Parliament and remains absent when the law is debat­ed and later he challenged it in the court. Makhdoom replied that there is no such jurispru­dence. He, however, argued that though PTI MNAs had resigned from the National As­sembly, but had the members in the Senate at that time when the amendments in NAO were approved. The petitioner had the opportunity to show up his rank and file in the Parliament to defeat the amendments, but opted to remain absent.

The federal counsel further submitted that at the time of passage of bill there were 157 members of the PTI in the As­sembly, as Speaker had not accepted their resignations. Therefore, there was possibil­ity they could have shown ma­jority and defeat the bill.

He said the President Dr Arif Alvi at the first stage had raised objection on the amendments, but in the second stage when the Joint Session passed the amendments could have given suggestion to the PTI that as a strategy show up in the Joint Session and defeat the bill. Where was the President con­science when he was signing the ordinances, issued by the PTI government to amend the NAO, 1999, he questioned.

Justice Ijaz observed that 172 members constitute the simple majority in the Nation­al Assembly, however, the bill was passed by 166 parliamen­tarians in the joint session, which is less than half.

Justice Mansoor said that the petitioner has deliberately ig­nored the forum for that people elected him to debate their is­sue in the Parliament. However, instead of debating the issue in the particular forum he chose to challenge the bill before the court, when lost the political debate. Makhdoom argued that whether the court would allow that the political controversy be resolved before the judicial forum. He said the court has to see the conduct and the bona fide of the petitioner.

Justice Bandial said that when the question of funda­mental rights and public im­portance is raised then conduct of the petitioner becomes irrel­evant. Justice Mansoor said the conduct is not relevant in cases of public importance and FRs conduct where the petitioner is an ordinary citizen, but here the petitioner has been law­maker and had the opportunity to defeat the bill. He stated; “We (judges) are talking of democ­racy, but does the constitution allow the way things have hap­pened in the country. He (Im­ran Khan) had boycotted the parliament when the bill was passed, while he had numbers to defeat the bill.

Justice Ijaz said when the court is seeing the constitution­al boundary has been crossed then the petitioner’s conduct becomes irrelevant. He said the petitioner not getting ben­efit out of this case, adding as a citizen he brought this case to the apex court. He has no axe to grind if the amendments in NAO are set aside. Makhdoom said the benefits are not always pecuniary benefit as it could be political mileage.

Justice Mansoor said how three of us or one person who has brought the case can de­termine the public importance of the whole nation. The par­liament has redesigned the law, he added. The judge ques­tioned which fundamental rights of the petitioner have been violated, as the petition highlights the violation of sa­lient feature of the constitu­tion and Islamic provisions.