ISLAMABAD: A member of the Supreme Court bench on Friday while hearing a petition of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan raised questions if the parliament can be left empty in any circumstances by the members and whether such conduct will not weaken the parliament.

A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Ijazul Ahsan took up Mr Khan’s objections to the amendments in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) in August 2022.

At the hearing, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on the question of the petition being of public interest asked how the court could assess this aspect when the petitioner did not provide any material to prove the same.

“Would leaving the parliament and rushing to courts not weaken the parliament and should such a conduct of the petitioner may not be weighed while adjudicating the matter,” he wondered.

Out of a total strength of 175 PTI members, only one came before the court to challenge the amendments, Justice Shah remarked. He agreed that boycotts were staged to send a political message, but also questioned participation of the lawmakers whose resignations were yet to be accepted.

When a bill was placed before the house, should walkout by members who tendered resignations, yet to be accepted, be considered as if they abstained from the proceedings, he asked. He also reminded the petitioner’s counsel that until they resigned, members owe to their constituents.

Justice Ahsan observed that PTI chairman’s conduct may be relevant when he had benefited personally from the amendments. But as a representative of the people and a citizen himself, he had brought an important question of public importance before the court since these amendments did violate the fundamental rights of people and therefore were significant, remarked Justice Ahsan.

The lawyer representing the federal government in the case Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the PTI had two chances to shoot down the amendments to accountability law in the parliament but it missed the opportunity by boycotting the proceedings.

The counsel told the Supreme Court there was a possibility the amendments wouldn’t have passed had the PTI attended the proceedings with full numbers. “But the petitioner chose not to do so.” He added after the bill was passed by the two houses, the president refused to give assent and referred it back to the parliament for reconsideration.

This presented a second opportunity to the petitioner – Mr Khan – as the matter was again placed before the joint sitting on June 9, 2022, for reconsideration.

The counsel added that Mr Khan opted out of the legislative process when he could have succeeded in attaining political mileage by participating in the voting.

The question of boycott

The bench comprising Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Ijazul Ahsan also made remarks about the PTI chairman’s decision to boycott the proceedings.

The CJP questioned the relevance of the petitioner’s conduct when he had raised a question of public importance and violation of fundamental rights in his plea.

Instead of adjudicating the matter of public importance, should the courts disregard these important factors by considering his conduct, CJP Bandial asked.

However, he hastened to add that to him, Mr Khan’s right to bring the matter to the court has no bearing on the case.

Apart from being a former prime minister, the gentleman Mr Khan also has rights as a citizen, the CJP added.

He emphasised that the boycott of the session when the amendments were being tabled might be a political strategy of the petitioner which may or may not make sense, but it was a ground reality.

“We should be interested in getting the answer from the other side and that the counsel representing the petitioner may seek instructions in this regard as to why he boycotted the session,” the CJP remarked.

‘Political case’

Mr Makhdoom argued that the petitioner deliberately chose to shift focus from the forum where it belongs to a forum, which has nothing to do with it.

“This conduct affects the standing of the petitioner before the court,” the counsel emphasised.

He wondered if the court allowed all political matters to be presented before it, then it would become the principal forum of political debate instead of the parliament.

The courts have repeatedly stated that they do not decide political cases, the counsel recalled adding the present case challenging the amendments was political in nature.

On the question of the boycott, Mr Makhdoom said when a petitioner is highly regarded, more responsibility lies on him to ensure his conduct reflects such responsibility.

If the barrier of public importance was lowered by the courts based on the political standing of the petitioner, then the bar must be lowered for everyone, the counsel contended.

When the resignations by PTI members were not accepted, they rushed to the apex court for an order to accept them. When finally they were accepted, the lawmakers again rushed to the courts against the move.

Justice Shah asked whether the PTI members received any remuneration after tendering their resignations.

The counsel stated that he had to check the details but added that the party’s lawmakers kept occupying rooms in the Parliament Lodges even after tendering their resignations. Later, PTI member Shireen Mazari, who was present in the court, told the media that there was no question of receiving any remuneration since their resignations were accepted on April 11.

Published in Dawn, February 11th, 2023