SC asks if legislation against national security MPs’ oath violation

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether the legislation made against the progress and national security of the country would be considered against the oath taken by the parliamentarians.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition filed by former prime minister and Chairman Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan, challenging the amendments made by the coalition government in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

Makhdom Ali Khan, counsel for the federal government, submitted that the members of parliament take oath for legislating in accordance with the law and Constitution.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed that it is also mentioned in the oath that they (lawmakers) will also take all decisions for the betterment, progress and in line with national security. The judge questioned whether the legislation made against the betterment, progress as well as national security would be considered against the oath taken by the parliamentarians.

The counsel for the federal government, however, submitted that the approved legislation of the parliamentarians is considered for the betterment, progress and national security. No court could determine the intention of the parliament, Makhdom Ali Khan contended. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah observed that the difference between the oath of judges and parliamentarians is that judges take the oath of taking decisions in accordance with the law. Makhdom Ali Khan submitted that the US court had declared that if the public wants to accompany their elected representatives to hell, then they will allow it. The counsel submitted that law is set aside only when there is no remedy available, adding that the Constitution has not given any power to the judiciary to set aside a law.

He further submitted that the Supreme Court through its decisions has empowered the judiciary to set aside the law. The counsel submitted that the NAB amendments were also challenged for being repugnant to Islamic principles adding that the only relevant forum is the Federal Shariat Court to look into it while the Supreme Court cannot examine the NAB amendments in the light of Shariah. “Only parliament is the competent forum to legislate and the judiciary cannot intervene,” the counsel for the federal government contended adding that the American president is empowered to pardon the convicted persons. Whether the decision of the American president is right or wrong, the judiciary never intervenes, Makhdom Ali Khan submitted. He further submitted that since 1947 to-date, the burden is on the appellant to establish a case adding that the Supreme Court had held in its decisions that the court cannot question the intention of parliament.

Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial, however, observed that passing of any law requires a sufficient presence of voters during the voting process. How many members were present when the NAB amendments were passed in the parliament, the CJP asked the learned counsel.

The counsel replied that he will inform the court about the exact number of MNAs present on the occasion but added that till date no law was set aside for not being passed by the majority members of parliament. “But this is just a question, so don’t be emotional,” the CJP responded in a lighter mood. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Wednesday).