Former prime minister and Pakistani Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan filed review petition in Supreme Court on Thursday, challenging the decision of the higher court decision on April 7 on ruling of then Speaker of the National Assembly on in vote of no-confidence.
Pentacle more bench of The Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, issued a unanimous decision in which events of April 3, including decision by then Vice Speaker Kasim Suri and subsequent dissolution. of assembly, which is contrary to the Constitution.
In his review petition, i.e. former prime minister argued that Article 248 of The constitution prohibited any other institution from interfering in in affairs of parliament. He stated that the Vice Speaker’s decision in conformity with Article 5 when he rejected no-confidence motion.
review the petition filed through Imtiaz Siddiqi and Chaudhry Faisal Hussain stated that Article 248 did not hold the complainant liable. for exercising any constitutional authority before any court. It claimed that bench made a mistake in assessing the positions of Articles 66, 67 and 69.
“The highest court was mistaken in evaluating the mandate of A constitution that guarantees that parliament as well as its members/officers, the president as well as the prime minister are not liable in an exercise of its functions, as well as discretionary powers before any court, plea said.
In addition, it’s added their reset of constitutional obligations cannot be challenged in any court under the Constitution. “All jurisdiction exercised by the Honorary College of Supreme Court in violation of Article 175 of Constitution,” the petition reads.
Read Imran announces next phase of ‘real freedom movement
Moreover, Imran stated in Petition that the Supreme Court’s ruling, in absence of any detailed reasons, there was no judicial determination in context of Article 184(3) read with Article 189 of Constitution.
petitioner said that he meant the decision of the then vice-speaker for law enforcement of Article 5 of Constitution and has nothing to do with it with in petitioner, who was the executive director of country at that time.
In fact the speaker was certified what was not no-confidence movement is pending against in the petitioner, therefore, advised for dissolution of National Assembly. He added that there was no evidence that his actions were ill-motivated or against law and the Constitution.
“Honorary Bench of The Supreme Court erred in assessing that in the proceedings of in house i.e. parliament is sovereign, independent and not subject to the jurisdiction of Supreme Court or any other court in accordance with the Constitution,” the petition reads.
“What procedures for “no-confidence movement, elections of a new prime ministers, etc. have been carefully provided in Constitution… so an honorary high court has no right to micromanage affairs of parliament,” This is added.
“Therefore, we pray with all respect that this Most August Court will deign to review to remember and set in repeal of the disputed decision of 07.04.2022, adopted by this court in SMC No. 01/2022, based on which on floating errors on Thus, the impugned Order may be revoked, and the titled causes be fired / fired, ”the conclusion says.