The Supreme Court Hears Imran Khan's Petition Challenging NAB Amendments

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard former prime minister Imran Khan's petition challenging amendments in the National Accountability (NAB) Ordinance by the government

ISLAMABAD, (UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News - 14th Feb, 2023 ) :The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard former prime minister Imran Khan's petition challenging amendments in the National Accountability (NAB) Ordinance by the government.

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

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

The Chief Justice remarked that the court had read his letter and appreciates his effort.

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

Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial addressing the Attorney General said that he had demonstrated prudence and responsibility. Some false information was attributed to the court proceedings and was reported not only out of context but also biased, he added.

Friends of the media should respect the lack of response from the court as it was showing patience and tolerance over what was reported. The Supreme Court's 2019 decision talked about media control, he added. The Chief Justice said that he believed in mutual respect, not media control.

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

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

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

He said that PTI filed petitions first against acceptance of resignations and then against their rejection. A Member of Parliament must be answerable to the doctrine of public trust, he added. The PTI MNAs resigned but the senators did not. A law could not be invalidated if it was not approved by the majority of the members of the Parliament, he added.

He said that legislation was made by the majority opinion in a democracy. No law was ever said to be made by one vote or by many votes, he added. He said that a law made by a majority of one vote was also a law. Even if 51% of people did not vote, there would be public representation in the assembly, he added.

He said that democracy was a number game.

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

The Chief Justice said that PTI's resignations were accepted in installments. There were judicial decisions regarding confirmation of resignations, he added.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that after the resignations were approved, PTI went to court against the approval. The Lahore High Court had stayed the acceptance of 44 resignations, he added.

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

He said that the American historian's words did not seem correct regarding Pakistan. The US Supreme Court had also said that the court would not get involved in political questions, he added.

The Chief Justice said that decisions on fundamental rights and constitutional questions continued to be made in Pakistan. A political question became legitimate only when political institutions were weakened, he added.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that PTI itself brought the ordinance and designed the NAB amendments. Challenging one's own designed amendments was malicious, he added.

He said that the Supreme Court dismissed the Watan Party and Tahir-ul-Qadri case on the ground that the intention was not good.

Justice Mansoor said that every law was of public importance. He asked how would the court determine which law was more important.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that public importance was not a ground for challenging any law. If laws were reviewed on the basis of public importance, there would be a flood of applications, he added.

He said that which cases were of public importance was not clear in the Constitution. Tehreek-e-Insaf should have approached the high court first, he added.

He said that if the decision of the High Court is challenged to the Supreme Court, it would be more suitable for the court, he added.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chief Justice asked Makhdoom Ali Khan to explain when the provisions of the NAB law on constitutional violations were invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Subsequently, hearing of the case was adjourned till February 15.