SC hears Imran’s petition against NAB amendments n PTI MNAs received other perks but not salary since April, SC told n Justice Umar Ata Bandial says decisions on fundamental rights continued to be made in Pakistan n If an assembly member remains absent for 40 days he can be de-seated, says Makhdoom Ali Khan.

 

ISLAMABAD    -   The Supreme Court of Pakistan Tuesday heard former prime minister Imran Khan’s petition challenging amendments in the National Accountability (NAB) Ordinance by the government. 

A three-judge bench compris­ing Chief Justice of Pakistan Jus­tice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah heard the case.

During the course of proceed­ings, Attorney General for Pa­kistan (AGP) Shehzad Ata Ela­hi said that the court had asked about the salaries of PTI mem­bers. The total salary of a mem­ber of the National Assembly was Rs 188,000, he added. The PTI MNAs had not received any salary since April while they re­ceived other perks, including travel expenses. The National Assembly was looking into these matters, he added. He said that he had written a letter on so­cial media regarding the judi­cial remarks as he wanted to talk about false reporting on social media.

The Chief Justice remarked that the court had read his let­ter and appreciates his effort. The AGP said it was not his job, but knowing that he could be the next target of criticism, he did what he thought was ap­propriate. The Supreme Court had issued guidelines on me­dia reporting in two judgments, he added. The problem was not electronic or print media. No rules apply to social media, he added. He wouldn’t call it fake news. An attempt was made to pit institutions against institu­tions on social media under an agenda, he said adding the court could look into the matter.

Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial addressing the Attorney Gener­al said that he had demonstrat­ed prudence and responsibility. Some false information was at­tributed to the court proceed­ings and was reported not only out of context but also biased, he added. Friends of the me­dia should respect the lack of response from the court as it was showing patience and tol­erance over what was reported. The Supreme Court’s 2019 deci­sion talked about media control, he added. The Chief Justice said that he believed in mutual re­spect, not media control.

Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for the federal govern­ment started his arguments on NAB amendments and stated that in political matters, court proceedings in other countries, including the UK, were record­ed on live cameras. Live stream­ing remained the official record and left no room for ambiguity, he added.

Upon this, the chief justice said that the issue of live broad­casting of court proceedings was pending before the court. Soon the case regarding tele­casting court proceedings live would be fixed before the full court, he added.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that a petition was filed in Islamabad High Court when 11 resigna­tions of PTI were accepted and this petition was not against the acceptance of these 11 resig­nations but against the non-ac­ceptance of other resignations. The Islamabad High Court dis­missed the petition in Septem­ber last year, he added.

He said that PTI filed petitions first against acceptance of res­ignations and then against their rejection. A Member of Parlia­ment must be answerable to the doctrine of public trust, he added. The PTI MNAs resigned but the senators did not. A law could not be invalidated if it was not approved by the majority of the members of the Parliament, he added. He said that legisla­tion was made by the majority opinion in a democracy. No law was ever said to be made by one vote or by many votes, he add­ed. He said that a law made by a majority of one vote was also a law. Even if 51% of people did not vote, there would be public representation in the assembly, he added. He said that democra­cy was a number game.

Justice Mansoor asked when did PTI resign from the National Assembly? Makhdoom Ali Khan said that PTI MNAs resigned on April 11.

The Chief Justice said that PTI’s resignations were accept­ed in installments. There were judicial decisions regarding confirmation of resignations, he added. Makhdoom Ali Khan said that after the resignations were approved, PTI went to court against the approval. The Lahore High Court had stayed the acceptance of 44 resigna­tions, he added.

He said that the Lahore High Court did not suspend the Speaker’s order to approve the resignations. According to the High Court, the Speaker’s deci­sion was not made with the ap­plication, he added. He said that 20 members of Tehreek-e-Insaf did not resign, they were part of the assembly. The American his­torian had stated that a political question could never become a legal question, he added.

He said that the American his­torian’s words did not seem cor­rect regarding Pakistan. The US Supreme Court had also said that the court would not get in­volved in political questions, he added. The Chief Justice said that decisions on fundamental rights and constitutional ques­tions continued to be made in Pakistan. A political ques­tion became legitimate only when political institutions were weakened, he added.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that PTI itself brought the ordinance and designed the NAB amend­ments. Challenging one’s own designed amendments was malicious, he added. He said that the Supreme Court dis­missed the Watan Party and Ta­hir-ul-Qadri case on the ground that the intention was not good. 

Justice Mansoor said that ev­ery law was of public impor­tance. He asked how would the court determine which law was more important. Makhdoom Ali Khan said that public impor­tance was not a ground for chal­lenging any law. If laws were re­viewed on the basis of public importance, there would be a flood of applications, he added. 

He said that which cases were of public importance was not clear in the Constitution. Teh­reek-e-Insaf should have ap­proached the high court first, he added. He said that if the de­cision of the High Court is chal­lenged to the Supreme Court, it would be more suitable for the court, he added. 

The Chief Justice said that ap­proaching directly to the Su­preme Court eliminated a par­ty’s right of appeal. Sometimes one province called a law good and another bad and in such a situation, anyone could ap­proach the court, he added. 

Justice Ijaz said that the Su­preme Court itself determined whether it had to exercise its ju­risdiction or not. 

The Chief Justice said that the Supreme Court had also been calling pending cases in the High Courts in the past. 

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that a four-member bench of the Su­preme Court had declared that there was no power to summon cases. The Supreme Court could only transfer cases from one high court to another, he added.

Justice Mansoor asked did the Constitution obligate a member to complete an assembly term after being elected.

Makhdoom Ali Khan replied that according to the Constitu­tion if an assembly member was absent for 40 days without no­tice, he could be de-seated. It was the discretion of the Par­liament whether to de-seat a member or not, he added.

The Chief Justice asked Makh­doom Ali Khan to explain when the provisions of the NAB law on constitutional violations were invalidated by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, hearing of the case was adjourned till Feb­ruary 15.