Justice Yahya Afridi
"While the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is an independent original jurisdiction that is not affected by the pendency of any matter on the same subject matter before any other court or forum, the decision already rendered by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 6093/2023, pending challenge in Intra-Court Appeal No. 11096 of 2023, and the
"Therefore, passing any finding or remarks during the proceeding of the present petitions by this Court would not only prejudice the contested claims of, the parties , in the said petition/ appeal„ pending before the respective High Courts but, more importantly, offend the hierarchical judicial domain of the High Court as envisaged under the Constitution. It would also disturb the judicial propriety that the High Court deserves in the safe, mature, and respectful administration of justice. Accordingly, I dismiss these three petitions. Having decided that exercising powers under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution in the present three petitions pending before us would not be appropriate, I find that my continuing to to hear the said petitions is of no avail. However, I leave it to the Worthy Chief Justice to decide my retention in the present bench hearing the said petitions.
Athar Minallah, J.- I concur with the articulate opinion recorded by my learned brother Justice Yahya Afridi. I also had the privilege of going through the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan. However, with utmost respect, it does not appear to be consistent with the proceedings and the order dictated in the open Court. The questions raised before us cannot be considered in isolation because questions regarding the constitutional legality of the dissolution of the provincial assemblies of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa cannot be ignored. Were they dissolved in violation of the scheme and principles of constitutional democracy before completion of the term prescribed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ('the Constitution')? The questions regarding the legality of the dissolution involve far more serious violations of fundamental rights. The matter before us is definitely premature, because it is pending before a constitutional Court of a province, as noted in the opinion of my learned brother Yahya Afridi, J. During the proceedings, I had proposed that the question of legality of the dissolution of the respective provincial legislatures must also be examined before considering the matter placed before us. The Honb'ble Chief Justice, who was heading the bench, had by assuming and invoking the suo motu jurisdiction conferred under Article 184(3), accepted to include the proposed questions for consideration. The learned brothers on the bench did not object and, therefore, while dictating the order in open Court, the inclusion of the proposed additional questions for consideration was duly acknowledged and announced. The Hon'ble Chief Justice was, therefore, pleased to assume/ invoke the jurisdiction in consonance with the principles highlighted by this Court in Suo Motu Case No.4 of 2021
2 (PLD 2022 SC 306). I was asked to formulate the precise questions which are as follows: (a) Whether the power of a Chief Minister to make advice for the dissolution of the Provincial Assembly is absolute and does not require any valid constitutional reason for its exercise? (b) Is a Chief Minister to make such advice on his own independent opinion or can he act in making such advice under the direction of some other person? If such advice of a Chief Minister is found constitutionally invalid for one reason or another, whether the provincial assembly dissolved in consequence thereof can be restored? 2. The interpretation of the Constitution is the prerogative as well as the duty of this Court. It is also an onerous duty to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. It has been observed by this Court that the Constitution is an organic document designed and intended for all times to come. Interpretation of the Constitution by this Court has a profound impact on the lives of the people of this country, besides having consequences for future generations. The framers of the Constitution have conferred an extraordinary jurisdiction on this Court under Article 184(3). The manner in which this power is to be exercised is in itself a matter of immense public importance. While invoking the jurisdiction great care has to be exercised. Article 176 of the Constitution describes the constitution of this Court. I am of the opinion that it is implicit in the language of Article 184(3) that the conferred extraordinary original jurisdiction must be entertained and heard by the Full Court. In order to ensure public confidence in the proceedings in hand and keeping in view the importance of the questions raised for our
3 consideration, it is imperative that the matter regarding the violation and interpretation of the Constitution is heard by a Full Court. The interpretation of Article 184(3) of the Constitution in this context, therekore, also requires interpretation.
