Pakish News We are an interactive media group that here a purpose to update users with the latest information. Our mission is to give you knowledge not only about your surroundings. We will also update you around the Globe.
ISLAMABAD: Just days after challenging the dismissal of his intra-court appeal by the Lahore High Court (LHC) division bench that upheld the single bench ruling to allow Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Sardar Dost Mohammad Mazari to preside over the provincial assembly session on April 16 and elect chief minister, Punjab Assembly Speaker Parvez Elahi has requested the Supreme Court to hear the matter urgently.
Speaker Elahi, who is a contender for the chief minister office of Punjab in a run-off election later this month, in an application moved through Advocate Amir Saeed Rawn on Tuesday, asked the apex court for early fixation of his petition against the April 15 decision of the LHC division bench on his intra-court appeal (ICA).
In his appeal, Mr Elahi had argued that the LHC had totally ignored the fact that courts had no authority whatsoever to administer or monitor the business of the assembly in any capacity rather it was responsibility of speaker, deputy speaker or the panel of chairmen to carry out business of the house.
The PML-Q leader recalled how PML-N leader Hamza Sharif had moved the LHC to shorten the date of the session, which was fixed for April 16, to elect Punjab CM. The petition came up for hearing before a single judge of the high court in chambers on April 13 and subsequently allowed. When Mr Elahi filed the ICA challenging the April 13 order of the single bench, a division bench of the LHC heard and dismissed the same.
PA speaker argues courts have no authority to administer, monitor business of assembly
The appeal pleaded that the single judge high court order was beyond the jurisdiction and powers under Article 69 of the Constitution, which bars courts not to inquire into the proceedings of the parliament or to call into question the validity of any of its proceedings on the ground of any irregularity or procedure.
Mr Elahi further argued that the single judge did not consider the ‘constitutional objections’ qua the maintainability of writ petition valid, as instead of deciding the objections to maintainability of the petition, it decided the main petition, which was neither permissible nor allowed in any eventuality.
In his appeal, he explained, the single judge ignored the fact that the speaker had “withdrawn the delegated power to the deputy speaker to preside over the house” only to avoid constitutional deadlock since no business could have been possible in view of the unfortunate incidents and pandemonium of April 3.
The appeal pleaded that both LHC benches while deciding the matter also ignored the concept of separation of powers of parliament and judiciary. Under Articles 68 and 69 of the Constitution, it stated, any procedure inside the parliament could not be called into question before any court of law. Yet the withdrawal of the delegated power from deputy speaker was challenged before the high court and subsequently taken up by the single judge in chambers, it added.
Also, the appeal argued, the division bench while dismissing the ICA had ignored the fact that courts had no authority to administer or monitor the business of the house.
Speaker Elahi mentioned that the single judge in his order had specifically empowered the deputy speaker, which was ‘illegal’ and against the rules especially when a no-confidence motion was also moved against the same deputy speaker and therefore he was not in a position to preside over the session in any capacity.
The single judge committed serious irregularity, as the deputy speaker was unable to preside over the session due to the conflict of interest, the appeal argued, adding the order of the division bench was also ‘illegal’, ‘unlawful’ and passed in haste and thus a ‘non-speaking order’.
Similarly, the LHC division bench order also fell in the category of misreading and non-reading of the available record, which was a sheer violation of law and deviation from the fundamental rights of the citizens, arbitrary and of no legal effect, the appeal mentioned.
