- Five-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial earlier resumed proceedings
The Supreme Court (SC) adjourned on Tuesday its hearing regarding National Assembly Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri's ruling on the no-confidence resolution against Prime Minister Imran Khan, Aaj News reported.
Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, a five-member bench, including Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Munib Akhtar, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, heard the case.
During the hearing, Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Senator Raza Rabbani and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz's counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan presented their arguments respectively.
The CJP asked whether a debate was held on the no-confidence move, to which Makhdoom Ali replied that it was not.
Justice Bandial also directed NA speaker's counsel Naeem Bokhari to present the minutes of the NA session held on March 31, it was reported.
On Monday, the SC had questioned how the NA deputy speaker could give a ruling to reject the no-confidence vote in the National Assembly on April 3.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar had observed that under Rule 28 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007, only the Speaker decides or gives his ruling on any matter on the floor of the House or in his office on the file.
He said the deputy speaker could give a ruling when the Speaker has delegated his power to him under Rule 14(4) through a written notification.
But Justice Muneeb Akhtar said, as per Article 260 and the Rules of Procedure, the 3rd April ruling on no-confidence vote was beyond the jurisdiction of the deputy speaker.
The apex court had also turned down the PPP's counsel’s request that a Full Court be constituted for hearing of this suo moto case.
The bench had directed the advocate general Punjab to get instruction from the relevant authorities on the election of the new chief minister and to make a statement today (Tuesday).
The court noted that the Parliamentary Committee meeting was held on the communiqué where the opposition failed to participate.
The bench questioned what the significance of the ruling of the parliamentary committee is, and what its significance is for the purpose of the House.