PTI chief says apex court not entitled to ‘micromanage’ affairs of parliament in light of Constitution
The review petition contended that the bench of the apex court has erred to appreciate the provisions of the Articles 66, 67 and 69 of the Constitution read with Article 248 that bars the superior court to interfere in the proceedings of the parliament and/or hold inter alia the president, prime minister, speaker as well as deputy speaker of the National Assembly.
“The stated institution cannot be subordinate and answerable to the jurisdiction of a bench of the apex court due to the unequivocal bar of jurisdiction contained in the abovementioned articles of the Constitution,” the petition maintains.
“The apex court has erred to appreciate the mandate of the Constitution which ensures that parliament, as well as the members/officers thereof, the president as well as the prime minister, are not answerable in the exercise of their functions well as discretionary powers before any court nor their discharge of constitutional obligations can be called into question before any court under the Constitution.” The entire jurisdiction exercised by the top court is in violation of Article 175 of the Constitution, the appeal read.
“That it is pertinent to mention herein that the ruling issued by the deputy speaker of the National Assembly was meant for the enforcement of Article 5… It did not have any connection with the petitioner [Imran Khan], who being the executive head of the government has nothing to do with the functions and or ruling of the deputy speaker,” the appeal claimed.
“In fact, the speaker had certified that there was no ‘motion of no-confidence’ pending against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter tendered advice for the dissolution of the National Assembly; there does not exist any evidence on record either in suo moto nor in any other proceedings that the stated action was ill-motivated and or against the law and the Constitution. Even otherwise the petitioner under Article 248 is not answerable to any Court viz. exercise of his constitutional powers/obligations.”
