LHC reserves judgment on Punjab CM election

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday reserved its verdict on petitions filed for holding election of the Punjab chief minister.

Chief Justice Muhammad Ameer Bhatti reserved the verdict after hearing detailed arguments of the parties on petitions filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Hamza Shehbaz and Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly Dost Muhammad Mazari for holding elections of Punjab chief minister and revocation of the deputy speaker powers, respectively.

During the proceedings, Hamza Shehbaz’s counsel Azam Nazir Tarar argued before the court and said that the deputy speaker had taken charge of his office under directions from the court.

However, Barrister Ali Zafar on behalf of Speaker of the Punjab Assembly Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi argued that the court did not have power to interfere in assembly matters. "Courts and the assembly cannot interfere in each other’s work and if such interference happens, conflict will take place,” he said.

He said that if there was a constitutional requirement, the court could hear the matter for its implementation only. He submitted that the provincial assembly was a constitutional body and it carried out legislation.

He submitted that the matter did not fall under the jurisdiction of high court and no question could be raised in the court overstep of the parliament under Article 69 of the Constitution. Mr Zafar submitted that as per rules of business, the court could not intervene in the matters of the assembly.

He submitted that parliament and courts respect each other and do not intervene in the domain of each other. He further argued that the petitioners had stated that assembly rules were not being implemented, which was a matter of the assembly.

If the speaker refuses to hold the election, it would be a constitutional matter and the court has the jurisdiction to hear such a matter, he said. He submitted that fixing of date was not a constitutional matter, therefore, the court did not have the power to hear it, he added.

At this stage, the chief justice observed that as per law, the election for the leader of house must be held as soon as possible and it was mandatory to complete nomination papers a day earlier for the purpose.

To which, Mr Zafar replied that the election of the chief minister would be held soon, adding that a three-day time period would not make any difference. The rules would decide about the powers of the speaker and their use, he added.

The chief justice asked if the speaker himself was a candidate for the post of chief minister, why he had withdrawn the powers of the deputy speaker. PMLQ’s counsel Imtiaz Rasheed submitted that the speaker would not use powers on the day of the election, adding that the court did not have powers to hear the matter.

He submitted that the PMLN had held the meeting outside assembly and tried to form a government in the presence of one. However, the chief justice observed that no one could assume the office without taking oath.

Imtiaz Rasheed pleaded with the court to dismiss the petitions and issue directions for holding elections on April 16. At this, the chief justice questioned how the house would be conducted on April 16 or any other date. The speaker’s counsel argued that the deputy speaker was an alternate to the speaker and if both were not present, the house would be run by a panel.

The court adjourned the hearing of petitions for a shortwhile. Later, as the proceedings resumed, Barrister Ali Zafar submitted that now the deputy speaker could not perform as a presiding officer for electing the chief minister, adding that he could not conduct a transparent election.

The chief justice questioned what could be done in such circumstances. Mr Zafar submitted that the panel of chairman would preside over the session. The chief justice questioned what would happen if both the parties use force for their candidate to preside over the session.

Ali Zafar replied that a deadlock would take place in these circumstances. At this stage, Hamza Shehbaz’s counsel Azam Nazir Tarar suggested that any of four independent assembly members could be appointed presiding officer.

However, Barrister Ali Zafar did not agree with the suggestion while expressing no trust. As the court resumed its proceedings after a break of a few hours, the chief justice observed that the parties had failed to reach on a decision but the law would take its course.

Ali Zafar submitted that the panel of chairman comprised four members and if the speaker and the deputy speaker were not available, the first member of the panel would conduct the proceedings.

Azam Nazir Tarar submitted that no date could be fixed with a mutual consultation, therefore, the court should issue appropriate directions in the matter. Subsequently, the court reserved its verdict on completion of arguments by the parties.