IHC rejects plea against return of PTI MPs to NA

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has decided the hottest issue of Pakistan’s contemporary politics i.e. whether the PTI members of the National Assembly have resigned or not.
A detailed judgment of the IHC bench, dismissing Syed Zafar Ali Shah’s petition against the PTI members’ return to the National Assembly, has declared it is within the powers of the National Assembly speaker that court cannot usurp.
The IHC judgment emphasised that the political issues should be resolved at political platforms; the separation of powers in the state pillars is utmost necessary and every pillar of the state has got scars from the past that needs to be cured.
A 37-page detailed judgment authored by Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Aamir Farooq of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has observed, “The prayer that the resignations of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) National Assembly members were voluntary and genuine, and a declaration has been sought in this regard as well. Neither can this Court usurp the powers vested in the speaker by the Constitution, nor make him go through the rigours of adducing evidence in the court, inevitably expressing our lack of respect for the office of the speaker and the representative forum of the people of Pakistan i.e the National Assembly. This is clearly hit by the doctrine of political question. The prayer and the petition have become infructuous as, admittedly, before the speaker could conclude the inquiry the resignations have been retracted, and have thus become ineffective and no more valid as has already been held”.
The IHC bench noted “neither is the petition maintainable, nor does any matter placed before us require our intervention in the exercise of the powers and jurisdiction vested in this court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine”.
A recently retired Senator of the ruling PML-N Syed Zafar Ali Shah on April 06 had filed

this petition, seeking from the IHC to declare the PTI National Assembly members as former members on the ground that resignations were genuine and voluntary. Shah has further prayed to the court to direct the Election Commission to announce the schedule of bye-elections, restrain the secretary national assembly from issuing the salaries to these members.
The petitioner had contended that PTI members had verified their resignations scores of time through media. He had further contended that Article 64 of the Constitution is silent on the acceptance or rejection of the resignation tendered by a member of Parliament.
He argued that once the resignations had been tendered and the members had absented themselves without leave of the House for 40 consecutive days, then their seats shall fall vacant. The petitioner had told the court that he raised his voice on this issue inside his party but no action was taken.
The IHC bench, referring to an apex court judgement of A K Fazlul Qauder Chaudhry Vs Syed Shah Nawaz &others, noted that the apex court interpreted the duty of the speaker in the case of resignation tendered by a member of the National Assembly. The IHC bench noted: “I have no doubt in my mind that speaker had the right and duty under the Constitution to satisfy himself as to the genuineness and the validity of the resignation by a member, before it is allowed to take effect.”
By referring a judgement of Madras High Court, the IHC bench noted “to resign is not a matter of right…”
Referring to the case of former Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, the IHC bench observed that a seven member- bench of the Supreme Court decided the contempt of court case. Pursuant to the said judgment, the speaker gave her decision and the same was challenged before the Supreme Court, culminating in the judgement titled ‘Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui and others Vs Federation of Pakistan. The said judgments had been delivered in the context of determining the role of the speaker under Article 63(2) of the Constitution. The principles enunciated in the two judgments unambiguously elucidate that it is the exclusive domain of the speaker to apply his/her own mind judiciously”.