What's new

Pakistani Constitution: Should it be respected or not?

Major

Test Star
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Runs
36,162
Post of the Week
7
What surprises me is the educated class celebrating the constitutional violation and making the country weak by the proceedings of today.

I dont see what is their to celebrate. Just because your favourtie person violated the constitution doesnt mean what he did was right.

Pakistans law and govt has just been proven to be unstable and a mockery has been made of the constitution, which is being celebrated.

Is the Pakistani Constitution just a piece of paper that deserves no respect?
 
The constitution has been respected and there has been nothing illegal here.

Secondly, in terms of extreme national security, you can take any actions necessary to preserve the sanctity of the state.

Finally, why are you crying? This is your chance to vote for a new government. What is the big deal? If the people of Pakistan hate Imran as much as you think they do then now is the time for them to bury the PTI in the mud.
 
Yes constitution needs to be respected. The onus is on the SC to decide if this is constitutional or not. And the people should accept their verdict. And if the SC refuses to hear the case then it means they think this is a legit move.
 
Where was this thread when Gillani’s son was caught on video bribing senators to get his father elected or when Zardari and co were hiding PTI MNAs?
 
Where was this thread when Gillani’s son was caught on video bribing senators to get his father elected or when Zardari and co were hiding PTI MNAs?
[MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION] has very selective memories. Do you remember him going about the constitution when Gilani thing happened, nor do I. Constitution is remembered when it suits the mafia.
 
The constitution has been respected and there has been nothing illegal here.

Secondly, in terms of extreme national security, you can take any actions necessary to preserve the sanctity of the state.

Finally, why are you crying? This is your chance to vote for a new government. What is the big deal? If the people of Pakistan hate Imran as much as you think they do then now is the time for them to bury the PTI in the mud.

No and no on thay second paragraph. You cant take any action under the so called national security. This is how we got blessed with military rule for so long. If Bajwa takes over tomorrow citing the very same, would that be okay too?

If there indeed was a conspiracy by the opposition, the best was to go the court and present the evidence there and charge the opposition members involved in such schemes for treason.

What happens if the opposition wins the election, how has Imran prevented the regime change and whatever else he is saying?
 
The constitution has been respected and there has been nothing illegal here.

Secondly, in terms of extreme national security, you can take any actions necessary to preserve the sanctity of the state.

Finally, why are you crying? This is your chance to vote for a new government. What is the big deal? If the people of Pakistan hate Imran as much as you think they do then now is the time for them to bury the PTI in the mud.

Don't rub salt into his wounds. He knows the Awaam will give a bloody nose to these traitors
 
All future PMs of Pakistan should build their respective mini-empires outside Pakistan whilst literally stealing food of poor Pakistanis' childrens' plates.

This is a literal fact.

This is an evil act on par with satan.

Heck even some pets have had infinitely better lives than the Poor of Pakistan.

What is the Religion? What is the Nation? What is the Country? What is the damn constitution?

It is the people. If people have to suffer hunger in 2022. Then burn everything up and start something from ashes.

It is time for Pakistani people to spit at these thieves who have damaged their country for generations.
 
All future PMs of Pakistan should build their respective mini-empires outside Pakistan whilst literally stealing food of poor Pakistanis' childrens' plates.

This is a literal fact.

This is an evil act on par with satan.

Heck even some pets have had infinitely better lives than the Poor of Pakistan.

What is the Religion? What is the Nation? What is the Country? What is the damn constitution?

It is the people. If people have to suffer hunger in 2022. Then burn everything up and start something from ashes.

It is time for Pakistani people to spit at these thieves who have damaged their country for generations.

There are many ther threads where you can cry about such things
This thread is about the constitution, should it be respected or not...
 
[MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION] has very selective memories. Do you remember him going about the constitution when Gilani thing happened, nor do I. Constitution is remembered when it suits the mafia.

Yea it seems constitution only applies to one party. What has been done today is definitely controversial but tbh it seems like the constitution has a flaw with article 69, which was cited by the Supreme Court in their verdict a day before. If this was exploited by PPP and Zardari the same poster would be doing Bhangra and chanting ek Zardari sab pe bhari.
 
What surprises me is the educated class celebrating the constitutional violation and making the country weak by the proceedings of today.

I dont see what is their to celebrate. Just because your favourtie person violated the constitution doesnt mean what he did was right.

Pakistans law and govt has just been proven to be unstable and a mockery has been made of the constitution, which is being celebrated.

Is the Pakistani Constitution just a piece of paper that deserves no respect?

Think most are worried that the same thieves who plundered our country for years were thinking that they had a free pass.

Constitution takes a back seat when survival is concerned - Don't you think so?
 
Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial on Sunday said that all orders and actions initiated by the prime minister and president regarding the dissolution of the National Assembly will be subject to the court's order.

The chief justice made the observation after taking notice of the current situation in the country following the dismissal of a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan by National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri and the subsequent dissolution of the NA by President Arif Alvi, the spokesperson of the apex court said on Sunday.

A three-member bench of the top court comprising CJP Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar heard the case today.

Following the chief justice's observation regarding the prime minister and president's actions, lawyer Asad Rahim said that until the court's order is out, "the status of the national assembly is up in the air."

During today's hearing, the chief justice further said the law and order situation in the country should not deteriorate, instructing all political parties to act responsibly.

The chief justice said that no unconstitutional step should be taken by any state institution and that no one should try to take advantage of the situation. "Public order should be maintained," the CJP said.

He said the court did not want to drag the hearing on account of Ramazan and that notices should be issued to all the political parties. Justice Bandial also ordered the interior and defence secretaries to brief the court on the law and order situation.

The chief justice ordered that the PPP's request be accepted and said the court would review the deputy speaker's actions. The court, however, rejected a request to suspend the deputy speaker's ruling and directed the attorney general to present it tomorrow.

Justice Bandial remarked that President Alvi should be made a respondent in the case since it was an "important matter". He also ordered that the Supreme Court Bar Association and all political parties be made respondents in the suo motu notice.

The court issued notices to Attorney General Khalid Khalid Jawed Khan, the speaker, deputy speaker, defence secretary, interior secretary, all political parties and adjourned the case's hearing till Monday.

The weeks-long political turmoil in the country reached its climax today as the NA deputy speaker prorogued a much-awaited sitting of the lower house of parliament without allowing voting on a no-trust motion against PM Imran.

Hearing on Punjab Assembly proceedings

The court hearing also touched on the proceedings in today's Punjab Assembly (PA) session that saw the vote for the chief minister adjourned.

Justice Mazhar asked what the given reason was for the session's adjournment, to which the PML-N's Advocate Azam Nazeer Tarar said none was provided by the PA deputy speaker. "Attempts are also being made to create a constitutional crisis in Punjab," he said.

The chief justice remarked that the court could not interfere in the NA's proceedings beyond a certain extent and the court was aware about its situation. He added that if a request regarding the PA came then it would be looked into with detail. He subsequently adjourned the matter till tomorrow while issuing a notice to Punjab's advocate general.

Dismissal of no-trust motion

Suri, who was chairing the session, dismissed the motion in a shock move, terming it against Article 5 of the Constitution, which states that "loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen".

At the outset of the session, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf's (PTI's) Fawad Chaudhry took the floor and referred to the clause, reiterating the premier's earlier claims that a foreign conspiracy was behind the move to oust the government.

"On March 7, our official ambassador was invited to a meeting attended by the representatives of other countries. The meeting was told that a motion against PM Imran was being presented," he said, noting that this occurred a day before the opposition formally filed the no-trust move.

"We were told that relations with Pakistan were dependent on the success of the no-confidence motion. We were told that if the motion fails, then Pakistan's path would be very difficult. This is an operation for a regime change by a foreign government," he alleged.

The minister questioned how this could be allowed and called on the deputy speaker to decide the constitutionality of the no-trust move.

At that, Suri noted that the motion was presented on March 8 and should be according to the law and the Constitution. "No foreign power shall be allowed to topple an elected government through a conspiracy," he said, adding that the points raised by the minister were "valid".

He dismissed the motion, ruling that it was "contradictory" to the law, the Constitution and the rules.

Angered by the NA proceedings, opposition parties decided to hold their own meeting in the lower house of parliament with PML-N's Ayaz Sadiq sitting on the speaker's seat.

They conducted their own proceedings with 195 lawmakers voting in favour of the no-confidence motion, according to PPP's Sherry Rehman.

Dissolution of NA

Subsequently, in another shock move, PM Imran, in an address to the nation, said he had advised the president to "dissolve assemblies".

He also congratulated the nation for the no-trust motion being dismissed, saying the deputy speaker had "rejected the attempt of changing the regime [and] the foreign conspiracy".

The premier further said he had written to the president with advice to dissolve the assemblies, adding that the democrats should go to the public and elections should be held so the people could decide who they wanted in power.

"Prepare for elections. No corrupt forces will decide what the future of the country will be. When the assemblies will be dissolved, the procedure for the next elections and the caretaker government will begin," he added.

President Alvi then dissolved the NA on PM Imran's advice under Article 58 of the Constitution.

Fawad Chaudhry confirmed the development in a tweet, adding that the cabinet, too, had been dissolved while PM Imran would continue in office under Article 224 of the Constitution, which is related to elections and by-elections.

Meanwhile, PTI's Farrukh Habib said new elections would be held in 90 days.

These developments unfolded as opposition leaders lambasted the government for what they called a blatant violation of the Constitution and urged the SC to take notice of the situation and intervene.

'Political decisions shouldn't be taken in courtrooms'

Later, Fawad Chaudhry spoke to the media outside the SC and asserted that parliament was a separate institution and today's NA ruling couldn't be challenged in any court.

"Political decisions shouldn't be taken to courtrooms. I feel the processes have now moved forward," he said.

Chaudhry revealed that the president had dissolved the NA on the prime minister's advice and within 90 days elections would be held.

Within two to three days, he said, a letter would be sent to "former leader of Opposition Shehbaz Sharif", seeking "their names for the interim government".

Responding to a question, he added that the army had no relevance with the current situation. "This matter relates to parliament," he said.

DAWN
 
There are many ther threads where you can cry about such things
This thread is about the constitution, should it be respected or not...

6 High treason

(1) Any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

Source: http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part1.html

Somebody has to speak for the Poor of Tharparkar.
 
Yes, constitutions should be respected and all lotas should be disqualified for life .

I heard now the PML, PPP and JKT are asking the lotas to return the money back as their " services " were not needed . JKT bought them for 4 crore each but PPP and PML paid even higher prices.
 
Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial on Sunday said that all orders and actions initiated by the prime minister and president regarding the dissolution of the National Assembly will be subject to the court's order.

The chief justice made the observation after taking notice of the current situation in the country following the dismissal of a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan by National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri and the subsequent dissolution of the NA by President Arif Alvi, the spokesperson of the apex court said on Sunday.

A three-member bench of the top court comprising CJP Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar heard the case today.

Following the chief justice's observation regarding the prime minister and president's actions, lawyer Asad Rahim said that until the court's order is out, "the status of the national assembly is up in the air."

During today's hearing, the chief justice further said the law and order situation in the country should not deteriorate, instructing all political parties to act responsibly.

The chief justice said that no unconstitutional step should be taken by any state institution and that no one should try to take advantage of the situation. "Public order should be maintained," the CJP said.

He said the court did not want to drag the hearing on account of Ramazan and that notices should be issued to all the political parties. Justice Bandial also ordered the interior and defence secretaries to brief the court on the law and order situation.

The chief justice ordered that the PPP's request be accepted and said the court would review the deputy speaker's actions. The court, however, rejected a request to suspend the deputy speaker's ruling and directed the attorney general to present it tomorrow.

Justice Bandial remarked that President Alvi should be made a respondent in the case since it was an "important matter". He also ordered that the Supreme Court Bar Association and all political parties be made respondents in the suo motu notice.

The court issued notices to Attorney General Khalid Khalid Jawed Khan, the speaker, deputy speaker, defence secretary, interior secretary, all political parties and adjourned the case's hearing till Monday.

The weeks-long political turmoil in the country reached its climax today as the NA deputy speaker prorogued a much-awaited sitting of the lower house of parliament without allowing voting on a no-trust motion against PM Imran.

Hearing on Punjab Assembly proceedings

The court hearing also touched on the proceedings in today's Punjab Assembly (PA) session that saw the vote for the chief minister adjourned.

Justice Mazhar asked what the given reason was for the session's adjournment, to which the PML-N's Advocate Azam Nazeer Tarar said none was provided by the PA deputy speaker. "Attempts are also being made to create a constitutional crisis in Punjab," he said.

The chief justice remarked that the court could not interfere in the NA's proceedings beyond a certain extent and the court was aware about its situation. He added that if a request regarding the PA came then it would be looked into with detail. He subsequently adjourned the matter till tomorrow while issuing a notice to Punjab's advocate general.

Dismissal of no-trust motion

Suri, who was chairing the session, dismissed the motion in a shock move, terming it against Article 5 of the Constitution, which states that "loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen".

At the outset of the session, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf's (PTI's) Fawad Chaudhry took the floor and referred to the clause, reiterating the premier's earlier claims that a foreign conspiracy was behind the move to oust the government.

"On March 7, our official ambassador was invited to a meeting attended by the representatives of other countries. The meeting was told that a motion against PM Imran was being presented," he said, noting that this occurred a day before the opposition formally filed the no-trust move.

"We were told that relations with Pakistan were dependent on the success of the no-confidence motion. We were told that if the motion fails, then Pakistan's path would be very difficult. This is an operation for a regime change by a foreign government," he alleged.

The minister questioned how this could be allowed and called on the deputy speaker to decide the constitutionality of the no-trust move.

At that, Suri noted that the motion was presented on March 8 and should be according to the law and the Constitution. "No foreign power shall be allowed to topple an elected government through a conspiracy," he said, adding that the points raised by the minister were "valid".

He dismissed the motion, ruling that it was "contradictory" to the law, the Constitution and the rules.

Angered by the NA proceedings, opposition parties decided to hold their own meeting in the lower house of parliament with PML-N's Ayaz Sadiq sitting on the speaker's seat.

They conducted their own proceedings with 195 lawmakers voting in favour of the no-confidence motion, according to PPP's Sherry Rehman.

Dissolution of NA

Subsequently, in another shock move, PM Imran, in an address to the nation, said he had advised the president to "dissolve assemblies".

He also congratulated the nation for the no-trust motion being dismissed, saying the deputy speaker had "rejected the attempt of changing the regime [and] the foreign conspiracy".

The premier further said he had written to the president with advice to dissolve the assemblies, adding that the democrats should go to the public and elections should be held so the people could decide who they wanted in power.

"Prepare for elections. No corrupt forces will decide what the future of the country will be. When the assemblies will be dissolved, the procedure for the next elections and the caretaker government will begin," he added.

President Alvi then dissolved the NA on PM Imran's advice under Article 58 of the Constitution.

Fawad Chaudhry confirmed the development in a tweet, adding that the cabinet, too, had been dissolved while PM Imran would continue in office under Article 224 of the Constitution, which is related to elections and by-elections.

Meanwhile, PTI's Farrukh Habib said new elections would be held in 90 days.

These developments unfolded as opposition leaders lambasted the government for what they called a blatant violation of the Constitution and urged the SC to take notice of the situation and intervene.

'Political decisions shouldn't be taken in courtrooms'

Later, Fawad Chaudhry spoke to the media outside the SC and asserted that parliament was a separate institution and today's NA ruling couldn't be challenged in any court.

"Political decisions shouldn't be taken to courtrooms. I feel the processes have now moved forward," he said.

Chaudhry revealed that the president had dissolved the NA on the prime minister's advice and within 90 days elections would be held.

Within two to three days, he said, a letter would be sent to "former leader of Opposition Shehbaz Sharif", seeking "their names for the interim government".

Responding to a question, he added that the army had no relevance with the current situation. "This matter relates to parliament," he said.

DAWN

The CJP is scared of the mafia. The Presidential reference should have been heard daily and decided, the CJP decided to favour the mafia and not give a verdict. I have no hope from any court in PK to give justice to any PK who doesnt belong to the mafia.
 
Yes, constitutions should be respected and all lotas should be disqualified for life .

I heard now the PML, PPP and JKT are asking the lotas to return the money back as their " services " were not needed . JKT bought them for 4 crore each but PPP and PML paid even higher prices.

PDM adjusted the inflation :yk

PDM also provided their trademark pimp services. (Drinks and women) :yk
 
No and no on thay second paragraph. You cant take any action under the so called national security. This is how we got blessed with military rule for so long. If Bajwa takes over tomorrow citing the very same, would that be okay too?

If there indeed was a conspiracy by the opposition, the best was to go the court and present the evidence there and charge the opposition members involved in such schemes for treason.

What happens if the opposition wins the election, how has Imran prevented the regime change and whatever else he is saying?

Imran didn't take any action that cemented his rule so there is no comparison with military take over. He merely prevented the illegal soft coup.

Imram is a democrat and he has thrown the ball to the people to decide their future.
 
Imran didn't take any action that cemented his rule so there is no comparison with military take over. He merely prevented the illegal soft coup.

Imram is a democrat and he has thrown the ball to the people to decide their future.

What is this soft coup and how is it illegal. Is it illegal to ask the PM to take a vote of confidence?
 
ISLAMABAD: The united Opposition on Sunday evening demanded a full bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan hear a case on the government's "unconstitutional' act tomorrow.

Earlier today, President Arif Alvi, upon the advice of Imran Khan, had dissolved the National Assembly after deputy speaker decided not to allow the Opposition to vote on the no-confidence motion.

According to a joint statement issued by the united Opposition, "Imran Niazi openly rebelled against the country and the Constitution, the punishment for which has been clearly stated in Article 6 of the Constitution — high treason."

The united Opposition, in its statement, further expressed its hope that the top court would pass a ruling in the light of justice and in line with the Constitution. It termed April 3 the “darkest day” in the country’s history, adding that constitutional, democratic, legal and political norms were “violated”.

The statement said that the united Opposition had “proved its clear majority” in the National Assembly and made it clear that it has a majority in the lower house.

The joint Opposition thanked all the friends of the Constitution, people, and democracy for its support.

The joint Opposition’s statement comes after Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial took notice of the political situation in the country and said that "any orders and actions that Prime Minister Imran Khan and President Arif Alvi regarding the dissolution of the National Assembly shall be subject to the order of this court."

Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial reached the top court after President Arif Alvi dissolved the National Assembly. The development came after the Opposition leaders demanded to review the “unconstitutional” ruling given by National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri.

The apex court has adjourned the hearing till tomorrow (Monday). Meanwhile, the top court has issued notices to Attorney General Khalid Khalid Jawed Khan, the speaker, deputy speaker, defence secretary, interior secretary, and all political parties.

According to reports, the judicial staff also arrived at the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Ijaz ul Haq also reached the Supreme Court.

Commenting on today’s development, CJP Bandial said that the law-and-order situation should be maintained.

“This is an important matter and a hearing will be held tomorrow,” he said, barring all political parties and government departments to take advantage of the ongoing situation.

Regarding the Opposition’s petition, he said that the hearing should be fixed for PPP’s petition.

CJP Bandial proposed to make President Alvi a party in this case and said that a hearing will be held tomorrow in this regard after the hearing of the 63A presidential reference.

The top judge further directed all state agencies and provincial law enforcement agencies to maintain the law and order situation in the country.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that Punjab Assembly’s session was adjourned because of the poor law and order situation in the country.

Meanwhile, Justice Bandial added that the court cannot interfere much in the proceeding of the National Assembly; however, he said the court is aware of the situation there.

Regarding Punjab Assembly’s session, he said the matter will be taken into consideration after a request/petition is filed.

He also mentioned that "symbolic voting" was conducted by the Opposition leaders, highlighting that Ayaz Sadiq conducted the voting on the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister and over 200 members of the assembly voted in favour of the motion.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/409378-op...f-sc-to-hear-case-on-govts-unconstutional-act
 
since many years , i find my constitution with full of loop holes, here and there, there should be a new constitutions and presidential system ........
 
Scrap the constitution and make Imran Khan a dictator.

Putin Khan Xi Jinping

Three of the most powerful men in the 21st century.
 
PDM adjusted the inflation :yk

PDM also provided their trademark pimp services. (Drinks and women) :yk

I personally know the person who provided the "drinks" at Marriot hotel Islamabad to the "guests" who were fighting for the democracy, Pakistani style while energizing themselves with "drinks and girls". He is a shareef admi and does not do the dhanda of supplying the girls .

To supply the girls, PMD is now using a new "contactor" after their old and trust worthy contactor for the job leaked PML leader Mohammad Zubair's video while he was having a good time with a girls before helping her to get a job. Whether this a rumor or reality, I don't know, but thats what some people in Lahore are saying .
 
PMD wanted an end to the "selected" PM's rule and wanted a new mandate and elections . Now they have it, what are now they afraid of and why are they not celebrating ?
 
PMD wanted an end to the "selected" PM's rule and wanted a new mandate and elections . Now they have it, what are now they afraid of and why are they not celebrating ?

Ironically it is the outgoing gov which is celebrating. In sha Allah come next elections Imran Khan will come back even stronger. Really looking forward to the day when these thieves who have looted the country are finished from politics forever.
 
PMD wanted an end to the "selected" PM's rule and wanted a new mandate and elections . Now they have it, what are now they afraid of and why are they not celebrating ?

They wanted atleast 6-12 months in charge to make a slew of amendments to the voting laws as well as dismiss all cases against themselves before rigging the elections.

Now they don't get it. Plus IK has the people behind him now. He will go into Jalsa mode and keep hammering them as foreign agents.
 
Yes. We should.

Not a single person in the parliament would be spared disqualification. Not a single one.

Qarardaad-e-Maqaasid and just the first page will ensure that our parliament is empty and most of them will end up in jails.
 
Even if, and that's a big if, we assume for a moment that some American diplomat said all that to an ambassador, question is how is it intervention? A foreign diplomat expressing his views what he thinks is correct for his country is not same as interfering in Pakistan politics. Tomorrow on the basis of a cnn anchor saying IK shouldn't be the Pak PM is good enough for IK to say that foriegn powers are meddling in our affairs and hence it's a violation of our sovereignty?
 
Even if, and that's a big if, we assume for a moment that some American diplomat said all that to an ambassador, question is how is it intervention? A foreign diplomat expressing his views what he thinks is correct for his country is not same as interfering in Pakistan politics. Tomorrow on the basis of a cnn anchor saying IK shouldn't be the Pak PM is good enough for IK to say that foriegn powers are meddling in our affairs and hence it's a violation of our sovereignty?

The smart thing IK did is presenting the letter to National Security Committee which deemed it as interference by a foreign country in Pakistan’s internal matters. That stamp of approval added the weight to the claim that IK needed.
 
They wanted atleast 6-12 months in charge to make a slew of amendments to the voting laws as well as dismiss all cases against themselves before rigging the elections.

Now they don't get it. Plus IK has the people behind him now. He will go into Jalsa mode and keep hammering them as foreign agents.

Yes, Patwaris wanted to be in power during the election to buy all the machinery involved in election to "win" the election . They have no chance in free and fair elections.
 
The Supreme Court has dampened the hopes of the opposition and the bars, which were expecting coercive order against the National Assembly speaker’s ruling that rejected the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan on the basis of Article 5 of the Constitution.

Several SC judges met Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial at his residence on Sunday to share their concern about the constitutional situation. It is also learnt that apex court judges also urged the chief justice to constitute the full court to hear this matter.

However, chief justice Bandial preferred to include Justice Ijazul Ahsan, who acted as monitoring judge in Panamagate case. Justice Ahsan is part of several special and larger benches which heard constitutional matters for last five years. Likewise, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, who is 15th on the judges’ seniority list, is also part of the bench.

Senior lawyers believe that the perception regarding the division among the Supreme Court judges had not ended. Keeping in view of this perception, they say that chief justice Bandial should form a larger bench wherein no one could raise allegation of favouritism.

They state that this move has made Article 95 of the Constitution “redundant”. A lawyer said that the constitution of bench in this matter indicated that the Supreme Court had adopted very “conscious approach”.

He, however, expected that the chief justice, while heading the larger bench, would consider all these aspects in this matter.

On the other hand, one section of opposition is happy over the prevailing political situation that Prime Minister Imran Khan ceased to hold the office on Sunday.

It is learnt that JUI-F is also happy over prevailing situation as their aim was to oust Imran Khan from the post of the prime minister. The PML-N is already divided on the early election. One section led by Nawaz Sharif was already demanding early elections.

In view of the prevailing situation, two deputy attorney generals resigned from their post. A member of the PTI legal team revealed that Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Jawed Khan is one of the architects of this plan. However, AGP denied this fact.

Bar representatives however are saying that if the AGP is not the architect of this move then he should resign from his post.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2350870/lawyers-see-a-conscious-sc-approach
 
A larger bench of the Supreme Court will take up on Monday the legality of the current situation in the country following the dismissal of a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan by National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri and the subsequent dissolution of the NA by President Arif Alvi on the prime minister's advice.

The proceedings are expected to begin at 1pm today.

Yesterday, the apex court had taken suo motu notice of the situation and after a brief hearing issued a written order in which the court said it would like to "examine whether such an action (dismissal of the no-trust motion on the basis of Article 5) is protected by the ouster (removal from the court's jurisdiction) contained in Article 69 of the Constitution."

Article 69 of the Constitution essentially restricts the court's jurisdiction to exercise authority on a member or officer of parliament with respect to the functions of regulating parliamentary proceedings or conducting business.


"No officer or member of Majlis-i-Shoora (parliament) in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in Majlis-i-Shoora, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers," clause two of the Article reads.

The court also ordered all state functionaries and authorities — as well as political parties — to refrain from taking any advantage of the current situation and stay strictly within the confines of the Constitution.

The court had also directed the interior and defence secretaries to brief it on the law and order situation.

President Alvi, the Supreme Court Bar Association and all political parties have been made respondents in the case.

The apex court rejected a request to suspend the deputy speaker's ruling and issued a notice to Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Khalid Jawed Khan to discuss the "constitutionality of the [deputy speaker's] decision" to dismiss the no-trust motion on the basis of Article 5 of the Constitution.

Article 5 obliges every citizen to be obedient to the Constitution and law and says that "loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen".

In its written order, the court further observed that "prima facie, there is neither a finding recorded in the matter nor was a hearing granted to the affected party" as far as the deputy speaker's ruling is concerned.

However, the deputy speaker, in his detailed four-page ruling issued by the National Assembly Secretariat on Sunday evening, declared a “foreign state was interfering in the internal affairs of Pakistan and Prime Minister Imran Khan was its primary target”.

Suri said he could not give details about the foreign intentions and its links to the no-confidence motion, but they could be provided in an in-camera session. The deputy speaker also based his ruling on the recent meetings of the National Security Committee, federal cabinet and Parliamentary Committee on National Security that were briefed on the ‘threat’.

A joint petition, filed by the PPP, PML-N and JUI-F through Farooq H. Naek, Azam Nazir Tarar and Kamran Murtaza, has also requested the apex court to declare the ruling of the deputy speaker, as well as the advice of the prime minister to the president to dissolve the National Assembly and the subsequent dissolution of the assembly as illegal and unconstitutional.

DAWN
 
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Monday said the Supreme Court will announce a “reasonable” order today in a suo motu case pertaining to the ruling issued by the National Assembly speaker which dismissed the no-confidence motion on account of being allegedly sponsored by a foreign power.

On Sunday, Qasim Suri, the deputy speaker, dismissed the no-confidence motion against PM Imran Khan citing Article 5. Subsequently, President Arif Alvi dissolved the National Assembly on the advice of the prime minister.

As a constitutional crisis gripped the country, the apex court took a suo motu notice to resolve the matter. As the hearing started today, a petition filed by the opposition seeking the formation of a full bench to hear the case was dismissed as the CJP said that the formation of a full bench would create delays in other cases.

He asked Farooq H Naek if he had any objections over the five-member bench. Naek said he had full confidence in all judges on the bench.

The bench that is seized with the presidential reference seeking the opinion of the court on Article 63-A is also hearing the suo motu case.

On March 21, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial had formed a five-member bench for the hearing on the presidential reference that argued for lifetime disqualification of lawmakers for defying party orders.

The bench is headed by Justice Bandial while other members were Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.

Suo motu on no-confidence vote

On Sunday, Qasim Suri, the deputy speaker, dismissed the no-confidence motion against PM Imran over allegations that a foreign power wanted regime change in Pakistan. The opposition said the speaker committed an unconstitutional act and approached the top court as well as resorted to strong protests.

Subsequently, the SC barred all state institutions from taking any “extra-constitutional” steps in the wake of the dismissal of the no-confidence vote against Imran Khan and the subsequent dissolution of the National Assembly by the president. The apex court directed the AGP to determine the constitutionality of the ruling of the deputy speaker.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/235092...-promises-reasonable-order-on-speakers-ruling
 
I personally know the person who provided the "drinks" at Marriot hotel Islamabad to the "guests" who were fighting for the democracy, Pakistani style while energizing themselves with "drinks and girls". He is a shareef admi and does not do the dhanda of supplying the girls .

To supply the girls, PMD is now using a new "contactor" after their old and trust worthy contactor for the job leaked PML leader Mohammad Zubair's video while he was having a good time with a girls before helping her to get a job. Whether this a rumor or reality, I don't know, but thats what some people in Lahore are saying .

When ali gandapur was caught with sharab, was that halal?
 
The constitution has been respected and there has been nothing illegal here.

Secondly, in terms of extreme national security, you can take any actions necessary to preserve the sanctity of the state.

Finally, why are you crying? This is your chance to vote for a new government. What is the big deal? If the people of Pakistan hate Imran as much as you think they do then now is the time for them to bury the PTI in the mud.

I rarely agree with [MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION], but the insane amount of power exercised by the Speaker of NA is incredible even for a dictatorship. In one stroke, he basically declared more than half the elected members of Pakistan National Assembly as traitors to Pakistan. How is that possible in a democracy?
 
Even if, and that's a big if, we assume for a moment that some American diplomat said all that to an ambassador, question is how is it intervention? A foreign diplomat expressing his views what he thinks is correct for his country is not same as interfering in Pakistan politics. Tomorrow on the basis of a cnn anchor saying IK shouldn't be the Pak PM is good enough for IK to say that foriegn powers are meddling in our affairs and hence it's a violation of our sovereignty?

Were you there in the security council meeting? It's clear that whatever was presented the members of the security council agreed that it was not good.

Let's please not pretend for a moment, the opposition weren't in bed with the Americans, they have a history of it. For that reason alone support for Imran Khan has grown exponentially.
 
combined with the utter glee and sarcastic posts by PTI and Imran simply shows they have tried to exploit a supposed legal loophole and set a very very dangerous precedent.

If this Action is retained, the next time, Speaker will declare opposition as traitors (who will have no constitutional remedy) and have them executed in the National Assembly. and since Courts supposedly cannot question what National Assembly decides. You will have a perpetual govt. with zero accountability to anyone.

I hope the serious consequence of this precedent are evident to fellow Pakistani PPers.

Honestly, Imran should have just resigned and let the PML-N and others form an ill advised short term govt. and get re elected a year later.
 
I rarely agree with [MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION], but the insane amount of power exercised by the Speaker of NA is incredible even for a dictatorship. In one stroke, he basically declared more than half the elected members of Pakistan National Assembly as traitors to Pakistan. How is that possible in a democracy?

There is plenty of contradiction here.
On one hand you say it's undemocratic but on the other hand the PM has called for an election where the people decide who should lead the country which is as democratic as it gets.

The real question should be how the opposition are allowed to act like the mafia and be able to bribe members to side with them and if they really believed in democracy then why are they not jumping at joy over an upcoming general election?
 
Were you there in the security council meeting? It's clear that whatever was presented the members of the security council agreed that it was not good.

Let's please not pretend for a moment, the opposition weren't in bed with the Americans, they have a history of it. For that reason alone support for Imran Khan has grown exponentially.

Are you ok with person unilaterally basically declaring nearly 200 elected members as traitors of Pakistan? No due process, just execution and denial of rights?

Just because an unjust move is being done by the side you favor doesnt make it fair. Understand the implications of what it means for future and what any future Speaker can do with such unquestionable power.
 
There is plenty of contradiction here.
On one hand you say it's undemocratic but on the other hand the PM has called for an election where the people decide who should lead the country which is as democratic as it gets.

The real question should be how the opposition are allowed to act like the mafia and be able to bribe members to side with them and if they really believed in democracy then why are they not jumping at joy over an upcoming general election?

There is hardly any contradiction in what I said. Imran lost majority. He should have resigned or faced no confidence motion, and if lost, then resign. Then the president would have asked opposition to form a govt. if they couldnt then you have an election.

Here, the speaker has unilateral taken away democratic rights of nearly 200 elected members and consequently the people who elected them.

JUST THINK WITH A CALM MIND: What if Nawaz Sharif or Bhutto had asked their speaker to simply declare their opposition as traitors and get them executed saying it is as per Article 5. How would you have felt then? Would you accept the argument then from the speaker that he acted as per article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
 
Are you ok with person unilaterally basically declaring nearly 200 elected members as traitors of Pakistan? No due process, just execution and denial of rights?

Just because an unjust move is being done by the side you favor doesnt make it fair. Understand the implications of what it means for future and what any future Speaker can do with such unquestionable power.

They didn't need 200, they needed much less and yes I am declaring widespread corruption. I have seen and heard about the corruption from almost every politician in Pakistan.

I understand your point about the unquestionable power, that's why we have the SC, that can overturn it. But if corruption is overcome using a loophole (not sure it is even a loophole) - I am all for it. If Imran Khan was removed it would have been because of these orrupt politicians who are in bed with the americans - it would have been a travesty.
 
They didn't need 200, they needed much less and yes I am declaring widespread corruption. I have seen and heard about the corruption from almost every politician in Pakistan.

I understand your point about the unquestionable power, that's why we have the SC, that can overturn it. But if corruption is overcome using a loophole (not sure it is even a loophole) - I am all for it. If Imran Khan was removed it would have been because of these orrupt politicians who are in bed with the americans - it would have been a travesty.

Sir, are you the judiciary? In a land governed by laws, you need to be judged by the judiciary. True democracy is painfully slow but you have to bear that burden lest you set certain precedents that break democracy.

Personally, I very much cheered revocation of article 370 by the BJP, thats what I desired but the legal loopholes they exploited made me very uncomfortable. I would not have been able to defend in a fair courtroom objectively.

Here, PTI and Imran Khan has blatantly violated your constitution and shred it to pieces. Honestly, the dangerous move should lead them to barred from the elections, because this move was not democratic by any stretch of imagination.
 
The Supreme Court adjourned on Monday its hearing on the legality of the current situation in the country following the dismissal of a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan by National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri and the subsequent dissolution of the NA by President Arif Alvi on the prime minister's advice till 12pm on Tuesday (tomorrow).

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial had earlier in the day said the court would issue a "reasonable order" today on the issue.

His remarks had come as a larger bench of the Supreme Court – comprising the CJP, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail — took up the matter.

During the proceedings, Justice Ahsan noted that there were violations in the proceedings of the no-trust resolution.

Justice Bandial observed that a debate before voting on the no-confidence motion had been clearly mentioned in the law but didn't take place.

Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar expressed dubiousness over the deputy speaker's constitutional authority to pass such a ruling.

In my opinion, he said, only the speaker had the right to pass the ruling. "The deputy speaker chairs the session on the non-availability of the speaker."

On the other hand, the CJP also observed that the deputy speaker's ruling mentioned the meeting of the parliamentary committee for security. "The opposition deliberately didn't attend the meeting," he said.

During the hearing today, Farooq H. Naek, who was representing the joint opposition, pleaded the court to issue a verdict on the matter today, pointing out to the bench that the president had already asked for names to appoint as caretaker prime minister.

But Justice Ahsan said it was impossible to pass the verdict today, adding that the apex court's decision will have far reaching outcomes. "We respect the opinions of political parties."

"We can't pass a decision in the air," Justice Bandial said, adjourning the hearing till 12pm on Tuesday.

Earlier, Naek had urged the CJP to form a full court bench to hear the matter, saying that the case concerned complex matters of the law and therefore all judges of the apex court should sit on the bench.

The CJP, however, asked Naek if he had objections to any judge on the five-member bench. "If there is a lack of confidence in any of the judges, the bench will rise," Justice Bandial said. To this, Naek said he had full confidence in all judges on the bench.

Justice Bandial said forming a full court bench would impede proceedings of other cases.

When PTI's counsel Babar Awan took the rostrum, the chief justice said that he wanted to hear the petitioners first. "If you want to give a statement, you can," Justice Bandial told Awan, who informed the court that the party was ready for the next election.

"The court will only review the speaker's ruling, not political statements," the chief justice remarked, reiterating that the court would give a "reasonable decision".

Naek told the court that the requisition notice for the NA session and no-confidence motion were submitted on March 8. "The speaker was bound to convene the session within 14 days but the meeting was called on March 27," he said.

However, Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the case did not concern when the NA session was summoned while Justice Akhtar said that the speaker had provided reasons for the delay. "You can argue whether the reasons provided were correct or incorrect," Justice Akhtar told Naek.

Suo motu notice
Yesterday, CJP Bandial had taken suo motu notice of the situation and formed a three-member bench headed by CJP Bandial, and including Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, to take up the matter. Today, a larger bench of the apex court is hearing the case.

After a brief hearing on Sunday, a written order was issued which said the court would like to "examine whether such an action (dismissal of the no-trust motion on the basis of Article 5) is protected by the ouster (removal from the court's jurisdiction) contained in Article 69 of the Constitution."

Article 69 of the Constitution essentially restricts the court's jurisdiction to exercise authority on a member or officer of parliament with respect to the functions of regulating parliamentary proceedings or conducting business.

"No officer or member of Majlis-i-Shoora (parliament) in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in Majlis-i-Shoora, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers," clause two of the Article reads.

The court also ordered all state functionaries and authorities — as well as political parties — to refrain from taking any advantage of the current situation and stay strictly within the confines of the Constitution.

The court had also directed the interior and defence secretaries to brief it on the law and order situation.

Read: Army has nothing to do with the political process, says DG ISPR

President Alvi, the Supreme Court Bar Association and all political parties have been made respondents in the case.

The apex court rejected a request to suspend the deputy speaker's ruling and issued a notice to Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Khalid Jawed Khan to discuss the "constitutionality of the [deputy speaker's] decision" to dismiss the no-trust motion on the basis of Article 5 of the Constitution.

Article 5 obliges every citizen to be obedient to the Constitution and law and says that "loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen".

In its written order, the court further observed that "prima facie, there is neither a finding recorded in the matter nor was a hearing granted to the affected party" as far as the deputy speaker's ruling is concerned.

However, the deputy speaker, in his detailed four-page ruling issued by the National Assembly Secretariat on Sunday evening, declared a “foreign state was interfering in the internal affairs of Pakistan and Prime Minister Imran Khan was its primary target”.

Suri said he could not give details about the foreign intentions and its links to the no-confidence motion, but they could be provided in an in-camera session. The deputy speaker also based his ruling on the recent meetings of the National Security Committee, federal cabinet and Parliamentary Committee on National Security that were briefed on the ‘threat’.

A joint petition, filed by the PPP, PML-N and JUI-F through Farooq H. Naek, Azam Nazir Tarar and Kamran Murtaza, has also requested the apex court to declare the ruling of the deputy speaker, as well as the advice of the prime minister to the president to dissolve the National Assembly and the subsequent dissolution of the assembly as illegal and unconstitutional.

Dismissal of no-trust motion
The weeks-long political turmoil in the country reached its climax Sunday after the NA Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri prorogued a much-awaited session of the lower house of parliament without allowing voting on a no-trust motion against PM Imran.

Suri, who was chairing the session, dismissed the motion in a shock move, terming it against Article 5 of the Constitution.

At the outset of the session, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf's (PTI's) Fawad Chaudhry took the floor and referred to the clause, reiterating the premier's earlier claims that a foreign conspiracy was behind the move to oust the government.

"On March 7, our official ambassador was invited to a meeting attended by the representatives of other countries. The meeting was told that a motion against PM Imran was being presented," he said, noting that this occurred a day before the opposition formally filed the no-trust move.

"We were told that relations with Pakistan were dependent on the success of the no-confidence motion. We were told that if the motion fails, then Pakistan's path would be very difficult. This is an operation for a regime change by a foreign government," he alleged.

The minister questioned how this could be allowed and called on the deputy speaker to decide the constitutionality of the no-trust move.

At that, Suri noted that the motion was presented on March 8 and should be according to the law and the Constitution. "No foreign power shall be allowed to topple an elected government through a conspiracy," he said, adding that the points raised by the minister were "valid".

He dismissed the motion, ruling that it was "contradictory" to the law, the Constitution and the rules.

Angered by the NA proceedings, opposition parties decided to hold their own meeting in the lower house of parliament with PML-N's Ayaz Sadiq sitting on the speaker's seat.

They conducted their own proceedings with 195 lawmakers voting in favour of the no-confidence motion, according to PPP's Sherry Rehman.

Dissolution of NA
Within minutes after the NA sitting, PM Imran, in an address to the nation, said he had advised the president to "dissolve assemblies".

He also congratulated the nation for the no-trust motion being dismissed, saying the deputy speaker had "rejected the attempt of changing the regime [and] the foreign conspiracy".

The premier further said he had written to the president with advice to dissolve the assemblies, adding that the democrats should go to the public and elections should be held so the people could decide who they wanted in power.

"Prepare for elections. No corrupt forces will decide what the future of the country will be. When the assemblies will be dissolved, the procedure for the next elections and the caretaker government will begin," he added.

Subsequently, President Alvi dissolved the NA under Article 58 of the Constitution.

Later in the evening, the Cabinet Division issued a notification, declaring that Imran Khan ceased to hold the prime minister’s office with immediate effect. “Consequent upon dissolution of the National Assembly by the president of Pakistan, in terms of Article 58(1) read with Article 48(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan… Mr Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi ceases to hold the office of prime minister of Pakistan, with immediate effect,” it read.

However, later, the president issued a notification allowing him to continue as the prime minister:

"Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, shall continue as Prime Minister till the appointment of caretaker Prime Minister under Article 224 A (4) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."

https://www.dawn.com/news/1683402/s...uling-today-sc-adjourns-hearing-till-tomorrow
 
The Supreme Court adjourned on Monday its hearing on the legality of the current situation in the country following the dismissal of a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan by National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri and the subsequent dissolution of the NA by President Arif Alvi on the prime minister's advice till 12pm on Tuesday (tomorrow).

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial had earlier in the day said the court would issue a "reasonable order" today on the issue.

His remarks had come as a larger bench of the Supreme Court – comprising the CJP, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail — took up the matter.

During the proceedings, Justice Ahsan noted that there were violations in the proceedings of the no-trust resolution.

Justice Bandial observed that a debate before voting on the no-confidence motion had been clearly mentioned in the law but didn't take place.

Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar expressed dubiousness over the deputy speaker's constitutional authority to pass such a ruling.

In my opinion, he said, only the speaker had the right to pass the ruling. "The deputy speaker chairs the session on the non-availability of the speaker."

On the other hand, the CJP also observed that the deputy speaker's ruling mentioned the meeting of the parliamentary committee for security. "The opposition deliberately didn't attend the meeting," he said.

During the hearing today, Farooq H. Naek, who was representing the joint opposition, pleaded the court to issue a verdict on the matter today, pointing out to the bench that the president had already asked for names to appoint as caretaker prime minister.

But Justice Ahsan said it was impossible to pass the verdict today, adding that the apex court's decision will have far reaching outcomes. "We respect the opinions of political parties."

"We can't pass a decision in the air," Justice Bandial said, adjourning the hearing till 12pm on Tuesday.

Earlier, Naek had urged the CJP to form a full court bench to hear the matter, saying that the case concerned complex matters of the law and therefore all judges of the apex court should sit on the bench.

The CJP, however, asked Naek if he had objections to any judge on the five-member bench. "If there is a lack of confidence in any of the judges, the bench will rise," Justice Bandial said. To this, Naek said he had full confidence in all judges on the bench.

Justice Bandial said forming a full court bench would impede proceedings of other cases.

When PTI's counsel Babar Awan took the rostrum, the chief justice said that he wanted to hear the petitioners first. "If you want to give a statement, you can," Justice Bandial told Awan, who informed the court that the party was ready for the next election.

"The court will only review the speaker's ruling, not political statements," the chief justice remarked, reiterating that the court would give a "reasonable decision".

Naek told the court that the requisition notice for the NA session and no-confidence motion were submitted on March 8. "The speaker was bound to convene the session within 14 days but the meeting was called on March 27," he said.

However, Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the case did not concern when the NA session was summoned while Justice Akhtar said that the speaker had provided reasons for the delay. "You can argue whether the reasons provided were correct or incorrect," Justice Akhtar told Naek.

Suo motu notice
Yesterday, CJP Bandial had taken suo motu notice of the situation and formed a three-member bench headed by CJP Bandial, and including Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, to take up the matter. Today, a larger bench of the apex court is hearing the case.

After a brief hearing on Sunday, a written order was issued which said the court would like to "examine whether such an action (dismissal of the no-trust motion on the basis of Article 5) is protected by the ouster (removal from the court's jurisdiction) contained in Article 69 of the Constitution."

Article 69 of the Constitution essentially restricts the court's jurisdiction to exercise authority on a member or officer of parliament with respect to the functions of regulating parliamentary proceedings or conducting business.

"No officer or member of Majlis-i-Shoora (parliament) in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in Majlis-i-Shoora, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers," clause two of the Article reads.

The court also ordered all state functionaries and authorities — as well as political parties — to refrain from taking any advantage of the current situation and stay strictly within the confines of the Constitution.

The court had also directed the interior and defence secretaries to brief it on the law and order situation.

Read: Army has nothing to do with the political process, says DG ISPR

President Alvi, the Supreme Court Bar Association and all political parties have been made respondents in the case.

The apex court rejected a request to suspend the deputy speaker's ruling and issued a notice to Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Khalid Jawed Khan to discuss the "constitutionality of the [deputy speaker's] decision" to dismiss the no-trust motion on the basis of Article 5 of the Constitution.

Article 5 obliges every citizen to be obedient to the Constitution and law and says that "loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen".

In its written order, the court further observed that "prima facie, there is neither a finding recorded in the matter nor was a hearing granted to the affected party" as far as the deputy speaker's ruling is concerned.

However, the deputy speaker, in his detailed four-page ruling issued by the National Assembly Secretariat on Sunday evening, declared a “foreign state was interfering in the internal affairs of Pakistan and Prime Minister Imran Khan was its primary target”.

Suri said he could not give details about the foreign intentions and its links to the no-confidence motion, but they could be provided in an in-camera session. The deputy speaker also based his ruling on the recent meetings of the National Security Committee, federal cabinet and Parliamentary Committee on National Security that were briefed on the ‘threat’.

A joint petition, filed by the PPP, PML-N and JUI-F through Farooq H. Naek, Azam Nazir Tarar and Kamran Murtaza, has also requested the apex court to declare the ruling of the deputy speaker, as well as the advice of the prime minister to the president to dissolve the National Assembly and the subsequent dissolution of the assembly as illegal and unconstitutional.

Dismissal of no-trust motion
The weeks-long political turmoil in the country reached its climax Sunday after the NA Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri prorogued a much-awaited session of the lower house of parliament without allowing voting on a no-trust motion against PM Imran.

Suri, who was chairing the session, dismissed the motion in a shock move, terming it against Article 5 of the Constitution.

At the outset of the session, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf's (PTI's) Fawad Chaudhry took the floor and referred to the clause, reiterating the premier's earlier claims that a foreign conspiracy was behind the move to oust the government.

"On March 7, our official ambassador was invited to a meeting attended by the representatives of other countries. The meeting was told that a motion against PM Imran was being presented," he said, noting that this occurred a day before the opposition formally filed the no-trust move.

"We were told that relations with Pakistan were dependent on the success of the no-confidence motion. We were told that if the motion fails, then Pakistan's path would be very difficult. This is an operation for a regime change by a foreign government," he alleged.

The minister questioned how this could be allowed and called on the deputy speaker to decide the constitutionality of the no-trust move.

At that, Suri noted that the motion was presented on March 8 and should be according to the law and the Constitution. "No foreign power shall be allowed to topple an elected government through a conspiracy," he said, adding that the points raised by the minister were "valid".

He dismissed the motion, ruling that it was "contradictory" to the law, the Constitution and the rules.

Angered by the NA proceedings, opposition parties decided to hold their own meeting in the lower house of parliament with PML-N's Ayaz Sadiq sitting on the speaker's seat.

They conducted their own proceedings with 195 lawmakers voting in favour of the no-confidence motion, according to PPP's Sherry Rehman.

Dissolution of NA
Within minutes after the NA sitting, PM Imran, in an address to the nation, said he had advised the president to "dissolve assemblies".

He also congratulated the nation for the no-trust motion being dismissed, saying the deputy speaker had "rejected the attempt of changing the regime [and] the foreign conspiracy".

The premier further said he had written to the president with advice to dissolve the assemblies, adding that the democrats should go to the public and elections should be held so the people could decide who they wanted in power.

"Prepare for elections. No corrupt forces will decide what the future of the country will be. When the assemblies will be dissolved, the procedure for the next elections and the caretaker government will begin," he added.

Subsequently, President Alvi dissolved the NA under Article 58 of the Constitution.

Later in the evening, the Cabinet Division issued a notification, declaring that Imran Khan ceased to hold the prime minister’s office with immediate effect. “Consequent upon dissolution of the National Assembly by the president of Pakistan, in terms of Article 58(1) read with Article 48(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan… Mr Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi ceases to hold the office of prime minister of Pakistan, with immediate effect,” it read.

However, later, the president issued a notification allowing him to continue as the prime minister:

"Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi, shall continue as Prime Minister till the appointment of caretaker Prime Minister under Article 224 A (4) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan."

https://www.dawn.com/news/1683402/s...uling-today-sc-adjourns-hearing-till-tomorrow

PTI and Imran khan might regret this partially thought out move. If its about winning a meme war on internet then sure!! But Law is a very patient thing to mess with.
 
What surprises me is the educated class celebrating the constitutional violation and making the country weak by the proceedings of today.

I dont see what is their to celebrate. Just because your favourtie person violated the constitution doesnt mean what he did was right.

Pakistans law and govt has just been proven to be unstable and a mockery has been made of the constitution, which is being celebrated.

Is the Pakistani Constitution just a piece of paper that deserves no respect?

When talking about politicians and “favorite persons”, I would absolutely LOVE the constitution to be broken into pieces by a non-corrupt and honest leader, as long as it’s in an effort to stop the nalaiq, nikammay and chore politicians from getting back into power by horse trading and buying out the traitors.

What’s the point of such a constitution that does not stop horse trading and floor crossing? You tell me?

If a parliament member wants to change party or alliance, he MUST resign from the parliament and run in the new election at HIS OWN EXPENSE.
This should be a fundamental clause in the constitution instead of having this too much of cloudy and shady hogwash.

Screw such a construction that helps protect these looters and thieves.

Perhaps we should throw the constitution out of the window and run the country on England’s model. No check coded in one doc construction?

Our country has seen enough of Shareefs, and Zardaries and Fazlurs and Altaf Hussains etc.

These shackles must be broken to free the country from this evil grip of a laanut.

They have brought the economy on its knees in the last 35 odd years. You want proof of that if living in denial is your way to tackle it then ask your PPP and PML angels to provide accountability of Billions upon Billions of loans taken in there tenures and figure out why was the country under a staggering debt of $105 Billion PTI took over - OR - you can voluntarily go see a psychiatrist.

And if (it’s a big if) Bajwa is a sell out prostitute who is a slave of external orders, then I hope IK, after coming back into power, kicks him out too. Don’t need traitors towards the nation, leading the armed forces.
 
When talking about politicians and “favorite persons”, I would absolutely LOVE the constitution to be broken into pieces by a non-corrupt and honest leader, as long as it’s in an effort to stop the nalaiq, nikammay and chore politicians from getting back into power by horse trading and buying out the traitors.

What’s the point of such a constitution that does not stop horse trading and floor crossing? You tell me?

If a parliament member wants to change party or alliance, he MUST resign from the parliament and run in the new election at HIS OWN EXPENSE.
This should be a fundamental clause in the constitution instead of having this too much of cloudy and shady hogwash.

Screw such a construction that helps protect these looters and thieves.

Perhaps we should throw the constitution out of the window and run the country on England’s model. No check coded in one doc construction?

Our country has seen enough of Shareefs, and Zardaries and Fazlurs and Altaf Hussains etc.

These shackles must be broken to free the country from this evil grip of a laanut.

They have brought the economy on its knees in the last 35 odd years. You want proof of that if living in denial is your way to tackle it then ask your PPP and PML angels to provide accountability of Billions upon Billions of loans taken in there tenures and figure out why was the country under a staggering debt of $105 Billion PTI took over - OR - you can voluntarily go see a psychiatrist.

And if (it’s a big if) Bajwa is a sell out prostitute who is a slave of external orders, then I hope IK, after coming back into power, kicks him out too. Don’t need traitors towards the nation, leading the armed forces.

I am guessing you are on the younger side of 20 or maybe younger. Breaking down of laws, without regard for laws can lead to something more terrible.

French Revolution was one the biggest landmark revolution in human history in 1789, all for democracy, brotherhood, equality and justice for all. What did we get post that?
Reign of Terror, millions dead and the end an emperor in Napolean.
More recently, How is the democracy doing post Arab spring in the last decade??

Revolutionary ideas are pretty seductive especially when you just see them just on 2 hr movies at best and maybe 30 second tiktok videos now.
 
There is hardly any contradiction in what I said. Imran lost majority. He should have resigned or faced no confidence motion, and if lost, then resign. Then the president would have asked opposition to form a govt. if they couldnt then you have an election.

Here, the speaker has unilateral taken away democratic rights of nearly 200 elected members and consequently the people who elected them.

JUST THINK WITH A CALM MIND: What if Nawaz Sharif or Bhutto had asked their speaker to simply declare their opposition as traitors and get them executed saying it is as per Article 5. How would you have felt then? Would you accept the argument then from the speaker that he acted as per article 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan?

Sorry but you speak a lot of nonsense.

Not a single person is denying that the SC will decide on the decision or action taken yesterday.
So you speak about courts and their supremacy and yet you Juno the gun by implying that PTI supporters are naive or fools for celebrating such a action.

Listen to this carefully.
No one wants the laws to be broken and that will be decided by the SC.
But the majority also done want the crooks in charge. So any delay in this celebrated and if these tractors are eventually hung by a noose then there will be Ben more celebration.

Now don't bother replying to me eith your sanctimonious drivel.
 
I am guessing you are on the younger side of 20 or maybe younger. Breaking down of laws, without regard for laws can lead to something more terrible.

French Revolution was one the biggest landmark revolution in human history in 1789, all for democracy, brotherhood, equality and justice for all. What did we get post that?
Reign of Terror, millions dead and the end an emperor in Napolean.
More recently, How is the democracy doing post Arab spring in the last decade??

Revolutionary ideas are pretty seductive especially when you just see them just on 2 hr movies at best and maybe 30 second tiktok videos now.

Tell that to the residents of England - they don’t have a written in one document “constitution”.

And funny you lecturing me about breaking down of laws to create a terrible situation.

Look at the terrible economic and social situation of the country and re-route your lecture on morality to those PML N PPP leaders who have been in charge of the country for last few decades.
 
Tell that to the residents of England - they don’t have a written in one document “constitution”.

And funny you lecturing me about breaking down of laws to create a terrible situation.

Look at the terrible economic and social situation of the country and re-route your lecture on morality to those PML N PPP leaders who have been in charge of the country for last few decades.

1. You have conveniently bypassed my observation about your youth.
2. England doesnt have a written constitution, what it goes by by set of precedents set forth from several centuries. The Supreme court of UK recognizes special status of certain acts of parliament as fundamental constitutional principles. Written or not written, UK is still a land where law is supreme, not the whims and fancies of one leader.
and lets not forget the fact that UK is a constitutional Monarchy, technically.
3. Nothing funny about the situation here in Pakistan, its a crisis. Earlier it was economical, not its constitutional too.

Just tell me what will be your opinion if Modi did something similar in India? Wouldn't you simply label India as banana republic etc.? ( Btw, judicial supremacy and independence in India wouldnt allow for such a move here. Indira Gandhi tried something similar( Emergency in 1975-77) but only ended up diminishing the power of the parliament)
 
I am guessing you are on the younger side of 20 or maybe younger. Breaking down of laws, without regard for laws can lead to something more terrible.

French Revolution was one the biggest landmark revolution in human history in 1789, all for democracy, brotherhood, equality and justice for all. What did we get post that?
Reign of Terror, millions dead and the end an emperor in Napolean.
More recently, How is the democracy doing post Arab spring in the last decade??

Revolutionary ideas are pretty seductive especially when you just see them just on 2 hr movies at best and maybe 30 second tiktok videos now.

First, kindly let it be established by Supreme Court if the speaker's verdict is unconstitutional or not. To me what speaker did is, although controversial , but not unconstitutional. But then buying of vote is controversial and unconstitutional too.
 
I guess it must be part of the constitution to indulge in a foreign backed vote of no confidence, participate in unabated horse trading, have murders fly in from abroad to cast their votes etc etc.


PDM kept saying IK is unpopular and won't go for elections, now he has given them what they wanted - a fresh elections. So why are they barking now? Are they afraid that people won't vote for them?
 
IK is gone either by no confidence or through dissolution Opposition got their wish what's the fuss now any of Ppp N or JuiF can now get 2-3 majority and form their govt. a win win
But the real glitch is that their master plan failed badly that how they want to oust IK
 
1. You have conveniently bypassed my observation about your youth.
2. England doesnt have a written constitution, what it goes by by set of precedents set forth from several centuries. The Supreme court of UK recognizes special status of certain acts of parliament as fundamental constitutional principles. Written or not written, UK is still a land where law is supreme, not the whims and fancies of one leader.
and lets not forget the fact that UK is a constitutional Monarchy, technically.
3. Nothing funny about the situation here in Pakistan, its a crisis. Earlier it was economical, not its constitutional too.

Just tell me what will be your opinion if Modi did something similar in India? Wouldn't you simply label India as banana republic etc.? ( Btw, judicial supremacy and independence in India wouldnt allow for such a move here. Indira Gandhi tried something similar( Emergency in 1975-77) but only ended up diminishing the power of the parliament)

This is equivalent to blaming Asian teams for preparing rank turners and praising SENA teams for preparing seaming pitches where match sometimes end in 3 days. and vice versa. Double standards from fans.


Conveniently ignoring the proactive misconduct of one party and warning other party of consequences. Constitution is one fix standard for all. There are no double standards in constitution.
 
1. You have conveniently bypassed my observation about your youth.
2. England doesnt have a written constitution, what it goes by by set of precedents set forth from several centuries. The Supreme court of UK recognizes special status of certain acts of parliament as fundamental constitutional principles. Written or not written, UK is still a land where law is supreme, not the whims and fancies of one leader.
and lets not forget the fact that UK is a constitutional Monarchy, technically.
3. Nothing funny about the situation here in Pakistan, its a crisis. Earlier it was economical, not its constitutional too.

Just tell me what will be your opinion if Modi did something similar in India? Wouldn't you simply label India as banana republic etc.? ( Btw, judicial supremacy and independence in India wouldnt allow for such a move here. Indira Gandhi tried something similar( Emergency in 1975-77) but only ended up diminishing the power of the parliament)

:D
1 - Don't worry about my youth and your observation. Your screen name pretty much answers it.
2 - If England had looters and crooks like PPP and PML ruling the country, then I would send laanut on their constitution or the lack of if it, if it couldn't bring the crooks under the weight of law.
3 - Modi? lol ... you tell me. Was removing Article 370, constitutional?
 
with regards to the OP here is article 62 of the constitution:

. Qualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament):
(1) A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless-
(a) he is a citizen of Pakistan;
(b) he is, in the case of the National Assembly, not less than twenty -five years of age and is enroled as a voter in any electoral roll in-
(i) any part of Pakistan, for election to a general seat or a seat reserved for non-Muslims; and
(ii) any area in a Province from which she seeks membership for election to a seat reserved for women.
(c) he is, in the case of Senate, not less than thirty years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any area in a Province or, as the case may be, the Federal Capital 144[] 144, from where he seeks membership;
(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions; (is zardari of good character and showbaaz? if it is proven they threw money at MP's they shoul be declared na ehal like ganja)
(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins ;
(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law; (every single one of the rebels should be disqualified based on this and the "letter"
(g) he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.

conspiring with a foreign power to work against the integrity of the nation disqualifies you. You better hope the PTI dont bring new cases against these traitors because if they do they are all going home!!

The PPP N league and JUI have clearly gone against the constitution and should be disqualified.
 
Assuming that all this is constitutional.

Dissolving the assembly was Imran's was his choice. What would have happened if he hadn't dissolved the assembly.

Since NCM was rejected, Imran would have continued to remain PM for next 1.5 years despite being in minority.

Are people saying that it's constitutionally valid to keep minority govt?

Next time if a govt goes in minority all it needs to do is to reject the NCM citing foreign conspiracy and keep the power as long as they want.

Since there is no requirement of proving the conspiracy and the decision can't be challenged in court, so all parties need to do is to form govt for once and then they are set for next 5 years.
 
Also see article 69

Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).
(1) The validity of any proceedings in 168[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] 168 shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.

(2) No officer or member of 169[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] 169 in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in 170[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] 170, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.

(3) In this Article, 171[Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] 171 has the same meaning as in Article 66
 
Interesting to see Imran behave in such an unethical and immoral manner. Us indians thought he was one of the good ones. He is not exactly Mr.Clean now, is he ?

No-confidence motion is a legitimate tool of any parliamentary democracy. If you don't have the house numbers, you're done - a simple rule. Instead, Imran conjured up some alex-jones type nonsense about foreign interference and dismissed parliament - he just did what any other crooked politician would do instead of honorably resigning, which makes him no different from Zardari or Sharif.

At the end of the day, it seems this person doesn't care about the Constitution, he's just interested in staying in power by any means. What a shame.
 
I think the court will overturn the decision as its blatantly unconstitutional and IK already knows that. He knows there will be an election soon (perhaps within an year) and has positioned himself as a martyr.

That strategy has a good chance of working
 
Interesting to see Imran behave in such an unethical and immoral manner. Us indians thought he was one of the good ones. He is not exactly Mr.Clean now, is he ?

No-confidence motion is a legitimate tool of any parliamentary democracy. If you don't have the house numbers, you're done - a simple rule. Instead, Imran conjured up some alex-jones type nonsense about foreign interference and dismissed parliament - he just did what any other crooked politician would do instead of honorably resigning, which makes him no different from Zardari or Sharif.

At the end of the day, it seems this person doesn't care about the Constitution, he's just interested in staying in power by any means. What a shame.

No confidence motion is legitimate with a reason. Neither there was any new laws being passed nor was there any other reason for a no confidence motion other than the fact that the opposition had bought enough seats to choose who sits on pm chair.
 
Interesting to see Imran behave in such an unethical and immoral manner. Us indians thought he was one of the good ones. He is not exactly Mr.Clean now, is he ?

No-confidence motion is a legitimate tool of any parliamentary democracy. If you don't have the house numbers, you're done - a simple rule. Instead, Imran conjured up some alex-jones type nonsense about foreign interference and dismissed parliament - he just did what any other crooked politician would do instead of honorably resigning, which makes him no different from Zardari or Sharif.

At the end of the day, it seems this person doesn't care about the Constitution, he's just interested in staying in power by any means. What a shame.

Interested in power by resigning and calling fresh elections to be held in 90 days?

How is going for fresh elections a sign of "interested in power". Opposition has as much chance as him to convince the voter base to vote for their parties and form next government. Or you wanted IK to resign and call for next elections and also boycott them just to show he is not "interested in power"?
 
No confidence motion is legitimate with a reason. Neither there was any new laws being passed nor was there any other reason for a no confidence motion other than the fact that the opposition had bought enough seats to choose who sits on pm chair.

Does Pakistan have an anti-defection law like India?

if not, unless there is a proof of bribery which would require the courts to rule on it, IK has no right to dissolve the assembly in which he doesn't have a majority in. There is no legitimate reason needed to pass a no confidence motion.

The President should invite the opposition to form a government. If they fail to do so, then there should be elections.
 
At the end of the day, it seems this person doesn't care about the Constitution, he's just interested in staying in power by any means. What a shame.

He literally dissolved the assembly. No power. Opposition got what they wanted. New Elections
 
Does Pakistan have an anti-defection law like India?

if not, unless there is a proof of bribery which would require the courts to rule on it, IK has no right to dissolve the assembly in which he doesn't have a majority in. There is no legitimate reason needed to pass a no confidence motion.

The President should invite the opposition to form a government. If they fail to do so, then there should be elections.

Anti defection law?
Ask Nawaz Shareef, I believe he bought the law in
 
Interesting to see Imran behave in such an unethical and immoral manner. Us indians thought he was one of the good ones. He is not exactly Mr.Clean now, is he ?

No-confidence motion is a legitimate tool of any parliamentary democracy. If you don't have the house numbers, you're done - a simple rule. Instead, Imran conjured up some alex-jones type nonsense about foreign interference and dismissed parliament - he just did what any other crooked politician would do instead of honorably resigning, which makes him no different from Zardari or Sharif.

At the end of the day, it seems this person doesn't care about the Constitution, he's just interested in staying in power by any means. What a shame.

Silly post- how is calling new elections unconstitutional? Until 4 weeks ago, it was one of the oppostions main demands- You guys really are desperate.
 
At the end of the day what citizens want happens, whether it’s India, Turkey or pre ww2 Germany.

Majority citizens do seem to want elections, so that’s what will get implemented.

Constitutions get formed and amended.. it happens , people find way around it as well to get power, that is politics.

Majority Indians supported BJP when they found similar loopholes during the time J and K didn’t have a government.

Respect of no respect is just notions , majority citizens what they want is the true will and that always gets facilitated or propagated by politicians/Parties.
 
Last edited:
Is it still in the constitution?


This is wiki says:
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of Pakistan was to prevent the switching of parties to form a strong coalition government or to become a strong opposition.

Maybe you can enlighten us more
 
Silly post- how is calling new elections unconstitutional? Until 4 weeks ago, it was one of the oppostions main demands- You guys really are desperate.

It's the way he called the elections that is under review at the supreme court. Even if it's not unconstitutional (The SC might as well declare it so), it can be argued that it is a blatant abuse of the constitution. I'll give him that it's a very savvy political move taken solely in his/PTIs own interest.

The only reason why he had to resort to this was his ego, which couldn't bear the sight of losing the no confidence motion. The conspiracy nonsense doesn't make any sense, because he has done himself what the US apparently wanted to do.

Flip the sides and it would be you and PTI who would be outraged at this and the opposition posting celebration selfies.
 
It's the way he called the elections that is under review at the supreme court. Even if it's not unconstitutional (The SC might as well declare it so), it can be argued that it is a blatant abuse of the constitution. I'll give him that it's a very savvy political move taken solely in his/PTIs own interest.

The only reason why he had to resort to this was his ego, which couldn't bear the sight of losing the no confidence motion. The conspiracy nonsense doesn't make any sense, because he has done himself what the US apparently wanted to do.

Flip the sides and it would be you and PTI who would be outraged at this and the opposition posting celebration selfies.

Ego?
So the man who fairly fought and lost elections for twenty years winning just a few seats and then grew the party until it eventually became the government suddenly has an ego problem and wants to save face?
Hmmm
 
This is wiki says:
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of Pakistan was to prevent the switching of parties to form a strong coalition government or to become a strong opposition.

Maybe you can enlighten us more

I'm not certain but the wikipedia article suggests this was an law brought in to prevent PMs from being voted out in no confidence motions and it no longer exists. That makes the PM post more like the US president but without the impeachment provision to remove him/her.

The Indian anti defection law allows for defection but a minimum of 1/3rd of the total legislators can form their own party and vote against the ruling party.
 
:D
1 - Don't worry about my youth and your observation. Your screen name pretty much answers it.
2 - If England had looters and crooks like PPP and PML ruling the country, then I would send laanut on their constitution or the lack of if it, if it couldn't bring the crooks under the weight of law.
3 - Modi? lol ... you tell me. Was removing Article 370, constitutional?

1. Again a standard non answer
2. You can champion your preferred leader all you want, just dont call it democratic plz. I would love Imran saying what you say abt "laanut" on the Constitution. Lets not cheer a hypocrite then.
3. BJP strategically planned various entanglements of Indian Constitution so that the revocation of article 370 would not get thrown out by the courts right away. I would share the year long chronology before the ended the article but you have already the ability to comprehend a post which is more than 5 sentences.
 
:D
1 - Don't worry about my youth and your observation. Your screen name pretty much answers it.
2 - If England had looters and crooks like PPP and PML ruling the country, then I would send laanut on their constitution or the lack of if it, if it couldn't bring the crooks under the weight of law.
3 - Modi? lol ... you tell me. Was removing Article 370, constitutional?

interesting you send laanut on Pakistan and its constitution....

Just so you know, our constitution has gods name on it:
sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, ...
 
The sanctity, integrity, national security of the State must come before any piece of paper.
 
Interested in power by resigning and calling fresh elections to be held in 90 days?

How is going for fresh elections a sign of "interested in power". Opposition has as much chance as him to convince the voter base to vote for their parties and form next government. Or you wanted IK to resign and call for next elections and also boycott them just to show he is not "interested in power"?

He literally dissolved the assembly. No power. Opposition got what they wanted. New Elections

Silly post- how is calling new elections unconstitutional? Until 4 weeks ago, it was one of the oppostions main demands- You guys really are desperate.


Why did Khan needlessly dissolve parliament and call for new elections ? His coalition government lost the confidence of parliament so he should have resigned. The opposition had the majority numbers and it was their right to immediately form the new government. Shabaz Sharif should have been the new PM for the remainder of this election cycle.

This is an abuse of power if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Why did Khan needlessly dissolve parliament and call for new elections ? His coalition government lost the confidence of parliament so he should have resigned. The opposition had the majority numbers and it was their right to immediately form the new government. Shabaz Sharif should have been the new PM for the remainder of this election cycle.

This is an abuse of power if you ask me.

Well no one is asking you. You are not a constitutional scholar or anything. IK used the constitution and we will see what happens. And he hasn't taken over, he has sent it over to the people.if that is abuse power,let's have more of this.
 
interesting you send laanut on Pakistan and its constitution....

Just so you know, our constitution has gods name on it:
sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Allah Almighty alone and the authority which He has delegated to the State of Pakistan, ...

As you admitted on the thread, your crooks smashed this constitution with horse trading and made no apologies, your ilk even celebrated, don't you have any Shame Major Sahib
 
Can anyone tell me when was the last time in Pakistan a PM called for an early elections ? Is this another first by IK.
 
This is an abuse of power if you ask me.

Well that is where you are wrong, nobody asked you.


If opposition are so confident that they represent the people's mandate then they should have no problem in going for fresh elections and getting a mandate by themselves rather than hijacking PTI's mandate.


Also PTI still has 155 MNAs in the assembly the next highest is PML-N with 84 (almost half) so by all intends and purpose it is PTI's right to form government. The opposition were trying to steal it by shaking hands with every Tom, Dick and Harry. IK did the right thing by dissolving the assembly.


If as an Indian you want to get into an argument of Pakistan's internal politics the least you can do is atleast educate yourself about the facts before jumping in.
 
Pti fans will keep going on about re election re election.

They dont understand the violation the speaker did. Once a vonc was submitted you cant have the speaker declare all mnas opposing as traitors.

Everything stays invalid after that.

Same argument could be put forward. Pri fans were singing the tunes od optimism that oh its nothing we will get popular.

Than they should had faced the vonc...
 
Back
Top