SC strikes down Punjab deputy speaker ruling, Elahi is new CM
All appointments by Hamza are invalid, rules Supreme Court; governor ordered to immediately administer oath to Elahi as CM; Maryam terms the apex court’s verdict a ‘judicial coup’
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi as the chief minister elected by the Punjab Assembly in place of Hamza Shahbaz Sharif on Friday.
Ater a protracted hearing for two days, the court declared the ruling of the deputy speaker void. It accepted Elahi’s plea against the deputy speaker. It also said that Elahi had secured 186 votes while Hamza had got 179 votes. It rejected the deputy speaker’s ruling of discarding ten votes of the PML-Q, cast in favour of Elahi.
The court ordered Punjab Governor Baligheeur Rehman to immediately administer oath to Elahi as the chief minister. If the governor is not available, President Arif Alvi would take oath from Elahi, the court said, and added that all the appointments by Hamza would be invalid.
The PML-N vice president termed the apex court’s verdict a “judicial coup.”
During the election of the chief minister on Friday, Punjab Assembly deputy speaker Dost Muhammad Mazari had rejected all 10 votes cast by the Pakistan Muslim League-q on the pretext that they had violated the orders of their party chief, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, citing a leter he received from the patriarch which said he was asking his party lawmakers to back Hamza.
Ater counting the polled votes, the deputy speaker announced that Elahi bagged 186 votes, while Hamza could get 179 votes. However, he refrained from declaring Elahi the chief minister.
Instead, he indicated that as party chief, Shujaat Hussain’s instructions to PML-Q members to vote for Hamza instead of Elahi held greater sway.
The deputy speaker then announced that Hamza had won the election of chief minister, since the 10 deducted votes reduced Elahi’s tally to 176, while Hamza remained on top with 179.
Elahi challenged in the Supreme Court the discarding of 10 PML-Q votes in the light of its previous decision in which the court had held that it was the parliamentary party that takes decisions about casting of votes of its lawmakers in favour of one candidate or the other. The court verdict had held that the party head was not the authority to take such a decision.
Mazari’s lawyer Irfan Qadir informed the Supreme Court that his client had instructed him not to participate further in the case proceedings and he would instead file a petition for review of the court’s decision not to constitute a full bench.
Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) counsel Farooq H. Naek also declined to participate in the court proceedings. However, they both stayed in the courtroom and watched the proceedings.
The ruling coalition had said it would boycot the proceedings in protest.
During the election, Mazari had decided against counting the votes of 10 PML-Q lawmakers, which were cast in Elahi’s favour, citing a leter writen by party President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain in which he had instructed them to vote for Hamza instead.
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked that the bench had not been provided with even one legal argument in favour of constituting a full bench during hearing. “You asked for time which is why the hearing was adjourned,” he told Naek. “Remain in the court and watch the proceedings. The legal question has not been answered yet,” he added.
Justice Bandial said the question was whether the party head could issue instructions to the parliamentary party. “According to the law, the parliamentary party makes the decision who to vote for. The party head can send a reference in case of deviation from the party policy. A full-court bench cannot be formed for this question.”
The chief justice said lawyers for all sides had been given time to present their arguments. The Supreme Court had dismissed the caretaker cabinet in 1988, the chief justice continued, adding that the chief executive was the head of the cabinet. “We want to wrap up the mater of Punjab chief minister as soon as possible. We could not be convinced to constitute a full bench.”
He said that a full bench could not be formed till the second week of September and the court would now hear arguments on the case’s merit.