JUDGMENT

MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.--- I have had the

privilege to go through the main judgment authored by the Hon’ble
Chief Justice. I agree with the same but I will also give a
concurring judgment of my own comprising reasons in support of
our unanimous short order dated 07.04.2022 (PLD 2022 SC 290),
accordingly.

2. A resolution for a vote of no-confidence (“the resolution”)

against Mr. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi, the then Prime Minister of
Pakistan (“the PM”) was submitted on 8th March, 2022 by a large
number of the Members of the National Assembly (“MNAs”), well
beyond the prescribed twenty per centum of the total membership of
the National Assembly as required under Article 95(1) of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“the
Constitution”). On 20.03.2022 a Session of the National Assembly
was summoned by the Speaker for 25.03.2022. On 25.03.2022 the
session was adjourned after Fateha for a deceased MNA. On
28.03.2022 leave to move the resolution for vote of no confidence was
granted by the House and the session was again adjourned to
31.03.2022 for discussion on the resolution. After some discussion,
the session was adjourned from 31.03.2022 to 03.04.2022 for voting
on the resolution for vote of no confidence. On 03.04.2022, the
session was presided over by the Deputy Speaker (Qasim Khan Suri)
without any explanation why the Speaker did not preside over. On
03.04.2022, Mr. Fawad Ahmed Chaudhary, Minister for Law &
Justice rising on a point of order, submitted before the House while
referring to Article 5 of the Constitution that in the normal
circumstances under Article 95 it is the right of the members of
House to move a resolution for vote of no confidence against the PM;
however, the present resolution against the PM was apparently linked
with and has a clear nexus with the efforts of a Foreign State to bring
about change of government and as such cannot be entertained or
allowed to be voted upon in this august House, and must be rejected.
Whereupon the Deputy Speaker, without waiting even for a single
moment, read in the House his pre-drafted ruling (impugned ruling”)
dated 03.04.2022, rejecting the resolution for vote of no confidence
against the PM and consequently did not allow voting on the same.
The Speaker (Asad Qaisar) also concurred with the said ruling by
SMC No.1 of 2022 2

signing the same. The impugned ruling is reproduced herein below

for ready reference:

“RULING OF THE SPEAKER ON NO-CONFIDENCE

RESOLUTION

1. On today the 3' April 2022, Mr. Fawad Ahmed

Chaudary, Minister for Law and Justice rising on a point of
order drew attention of the Chair that in the normal
circumstances under Article 95 of the Constitution it is right of
the members to move a resolution for vote of no-confidence
against the Prime Minister. He further stated that Article 5 of
the Constitution provides that it is the basic duty of the every
citizen to show the loyalty to the State. He also pointed out that
Pakistani diplomat met with the officials of the foreign state and
also informed about the intention of that State against the Prime
Minister Imran Khan.
2. A notice for requisitioning the session of National
Assembly was filed by members of the opposition in terms of
Article 54(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, with the Secretariat
of the National Assembly on 8-3-2022. On the same date i.e., 8-
3-2022 another notice under Rule 37 of the National Assembly
Rules, for the notice of resolution of no confidence against Mr.
Imran Khan, as Prime Minister was filed with the Secretariat of
the National Assembly.
3. The session of the National Assembly was summoned to be
held on 25-3-2022. After offering fateha the session was
adjourned for 28-3-2022. On that date leave for moving
resolution for a vote of no confidence in terms of Article 95 of the
Constitution was granted and the session was adjourned for
31-3-2022. The session was then adjourned for 3-4-2022.
4. In the meanwhile Prime Minister Iman Khan addressed a
public rally on 27-3-2022 at Parade ground, Islamabad. Mr.
Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Prime
Minister Imran Khan briefly disclosed about a foreign country's
interference in the internal affairs and parliamentary process in
Pakistan. The details as later emerged were that on 7-3-2022
Pakistan's Ambassador deputed to an important foreign capital
sent official correspondence i.e. cypher narrating details of a
meeting and conversation with high official(s) of that foreign
state. The gist of the contents of the cypher indicated that the
foreign state was interfering in the internal affairs of Pakistan
and Prime Minister lmran Khan was its primary target. The
circumstance shows that there was nexus between no
confidence motion against Prime Minister and the foreign
intervention and the activities of that State's representatives
deputed to Pakistan. The Federal cabinet as well as the
National Security Committee (NSC) headed by Prime Minister,
some members of the Federal Cabinet, The Chairman, Joint
Chiefs of Staff Committee, and the three services Chiefs,
meeting on 31 3- 2022 was briefed about the unwarranted
foreign, interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan. It is a
matter of record that after the meetings of the Federal Cabinet
and the National Security Committee, Pakistan formally
conveyed a demarche to the foreign state concerned.
5. Given the above facts and circumstances a briefing for
the Parliamentary Committee on the National Security was
arranged for briefing on the issue on 31-3-2022. Unfortunately
the concerned members of the opposition choose to boycott or
ignore the briefing. However, as Speaker and custodian of the
SMC No.1 of 2022 3

National Assembly, I asked the concerned functionaries of the

Government to provide me the relevant facts and information
subject to the applicable laws. This was accordingly done. The
facts reveled to me were absolutely shocking and completely
unacceptable for any independent people with self respect and
dignity. I was fully convinced that there was blatant foreign
interference in the internal affairs of• Pakistan and the duly
elected Prime Minister of Pakistan was the prime target. When
was even more shocking was the apparently close nexus and
proximity between blatant foreign interference and the motion of
no confidence against the Prime Minister also became evident.
6. For a number of reasons and save for what I have
observed hereinabove, I would presently refrain from giving
more and specific details about the foreign intervention and its
links to the no-confidence motion moved against the Prime
Minister Imran Khan. If and when so required by this august
House and subject to applicable laws, details and specifics of
foreign interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan and its
parliamentary process including no confidence motion can be
provided and discussed in greater detail in closed door in
camera session.
7. Suffice it to say that to me it is now clear that there has
been blatant foreign interference in the internal affairs of
Pakistan and there exists a close nexus between such foreign
interference and the campaign to oust and remove the
democratically elected government headed by Prime Minister
Imran Khan through different means including the motion for
no-confidence initiated on 8-3-2022. No self respecting
independent, democratic country and people with national pride
and dignity could or should ever let such things to happen nor
allow its democratic institutions including parliamentary
processes to be so grossly abused by foreigners or foreign
states to bring a change of any Government or Prime Minister
as appears to be the case presently.
8. The membership of this august House is a matter of
great honour and trust for every member. Any action though
purported to be under the Constitution and the Rules but for
extraneous purposes and goals which could compromise the
sovereignty and independence of the country could not be
sustained under any circumstances. Any such attempt must be
thwarted and quashed.
9. The motion of no confidence against the Prime Minister is
apparently linked with and has clear nexus with the efforts of
the foreign State to bring about change of Government cannot
be entertained or allowed to be voted upon in this august House
and must be rejected empathetically as this could ever be the
intent of the Constitution. The fundamental existential issue
should be clearly settled first leaving no doubt or taint of
external interference or collusion of Pakistani citizens including
few member of the National Assembly. If any, in this unholy
venture. This would require a thorough investigation by
appropriate forum or authority under the law. However, without
such thorough probe, if such motion no-confidence is
entertained in the grab of parliamentary process now or
allowed to succeed and a foreign country is able to achieve its
goal to oust a democratically elected Government and/or Prime
Minister in this manner, we shall cease to be an independent
and sovereign country governed by the Constitution and the
laws.
10. I, as the Deputy Speaker and custodian of the House
and bound by the oath taken by me under the Constitution of
SMC No.1 of 2022 4

Pakistan to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution

cannot remain indifferent or act as unconcerned spectator let
alone be instrumental in this unconstitutional act of change of
Government and /or Prime Minister orchestrated by a foreign
state. The present motion of no confidence being the very
essence of the internal proceedings
of the House cannot be entertained
or allowed by me to proceed in
these circumstances and has to be
disallowed and accordingly rejected.
Note:

These are the detailed reasons of my order dated 3rd April

2022 in the sitting of the National Assembly

(Qasim Khan Sun)

Deputy Speaker
National Assembly of Pakistan

I concur with the above ruling.

(Asad Qaisr)
Speaker
3rd April 2022 National Assembly of Pakista

Within minutes thereafter, the PM on a live TV channel

announced that he had advised the President of Pakistan (“the
President”) to dissolve the National Assembly and the same within
no time was followed by the dissolution of National Assembly by the
President. A notification was also issued by the Cabinet Division
stating that the PM has ceased to hold the office. The Hon’ble Chief
Justice of Pakistan took SUO MOTU notice of the matter and the
same was fixed before this Five-Members bench. Notices were issued
to all the concerned.

3. The Attorney-General for Pakistan and the learned

counsel for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, PTI, both argued that under
Article 69 of the Constitution this Court cannot inquire into any
proceedings of Parliament. Further argued that the resolution of vote
of no confidence was motivated by a Foreign State interested in the
regime change in Pakistan; the PM, Speaker, Deputy Speaker and the
Federal Minister while relying upon a letter / communication
allegedly received from a Foreign state correctly exercised their
respective constitutional powers. Hence, this Court has no
SMC No.1 of 2022 5

jurisdiction to call in question any such constitutional action of the

president, the PM, Speaker, Deputy Speaker

4. The learned Counsel for the other political parties made

almost similar submission by arguing that the opposition parties
individually started announcing in January 2022 that they were
planning to move a vote of no confidence against the PM; the
opposition parties jointly endorsed the move in late February 2022;
the alleged letter / communication was allegedly received by the PM
on 07.03.2022 and after 19 days on 27.03.2022 the PM waved the
letter during a mass meeting in Islamabad by presenting it a Foreign
conspiracy / threat against him. Further, the opposition parties
demanded that said letter / communication be presented before the
Parliament but the same was not presented. The PM cannot continue
in office as he does not hold majority of MNAs.

5. We have heard this matter for a couple of days including

the learned Attorney-General and the learned counsel for the
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, PTI and other political parties.

6. No doubt, the validity of the proceedings in the National

Assembly and its sovereignty is protected by the Constitution. The
clause (1) of Article 69 provides that the validity of any proceedings in
the Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any
irregularity of procedure whereas clause (2) of Article 69 provides that
no officer or Member of the Parliament in whom powers are vested by
or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of
business, or for maintaining order in the Parliament shall be subject
to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of any such exercise of
power by him. The issue as to what are, and what are not, the
internal proceedings of the Parliament, which are beyond the pale of
jurisdiction of the Courts has been dilated upon by this Courts in the
past on many occasions. It would not be out of place to observe that
Article 69 of the Constitution however does not place a complete bar
on the jurisdiction of this Court. The actions by the Speaker, if based
in violation of existing rules or the discretion so exercised by him
affecting the smooth running of the functions of the House is, prima
facie, in violation of judicious norms, cannot be given a protecting
blanket of Article 69 of the Constitution. Reference here can be made
to the case of Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui v. Federation of Pakistan
(PLD 2012 SC 774).
SMC No.1 of 2022 6

7. It is a matter of record that the resolution against the PM

was submitted on 8th March, 2022 by a large number of the MNAs
well beyond the prescribed twenty per centum of the total
membership of the National Assembly as required under Article 95(1).
Since, the resolution was declared admissible by the Speaker, then
the Speaker under Article 95(2) was under constitutional
duty/responsibility to hold voting thereon within the time frame
prescribed therein that, “a resolution shall not be voted upon before
the expiration of three days, or later than seven days, from the day on
which such resolution is moved in the National Assembly”. Meaning
thereby such a resolution should have been voted upon between
three and seven days but the Speaker for no reason delayed the
voting thereon and finally rejected the resolution on the question of
inadmissibility which is alien to the Constitution. Once the leave to
move the resolution is granted then that resolution has to be voted
upon. The deputy Speaker in rejecting the resolution exercised a
jurisdiction not so vested in him and his such unilateral act was
unconstitutional and without lawful authority. Once the matter was
fixed for voting, then the Speaker had no power and lawful authority
to avoid voting or reject the resolution without voting. This alone is
an act which is ultra vires the Constitution calling for interference by
this Court.

8. The Speaker in a Parliamentary form of Government like

us holds an office of highest distinction and has the sole
responsibility cast on him of maintaining the prestige and the dignity
of the House and its members. The Speaker enjoys a very high status
and position of great respect and esteem in the parliamentary
traditions. He, being the very embodiment of propriety and
impartiality, has been assigned the function to regulate the
procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in the
Parliament. The Speaker enjoys a pivotal position which is and has
been held by people of outstanding ability and impartiality. It may be
noted that an elected member of the Assembly when elected as a
Speaker, he ought to be neutral in the discharge of his duty and
function and ought to be above politics. (See Mirza Tahir Beg v. Syed
Kausar Ali Shah and Others (PLD 1976 SC 504)). While deciding any
matter in his competence, the Speaker shall not be influenced by
anyone, including the party to which he is affiliated. While portraying
the entire episode notionally in our minds would reflect that the
SMC No.1 of 2022 7

conduct of the Deputy Speaker throughout remained very partisan,

manuring to undo the resolution. The conduct so reflected by the
Deputy Speaker is unbecoming of such a prestigious position of the
House of the legislators. It is again for the Parliamentarians to decide
how to stop such a biased and partial act in future by a person
holding the prestigious position like Speaker/Deputy Speaker.

9. Moreover, the Preamble/Objectives Resolution of the

Constitution, which is a "substantive part of the Constitution and
shall have effect accordingly" (Article 2A of the Constitution),
mandates that the people of Pakistan "through the chosen
representatives of the people" exercise their powers, and the most
important power is the power to vote, but the Deputy Speaker in
violation of the Constitution denied them the right to vote. The
Speaker has utterly failed to discharge its solemn duty. The Speaker
appears to have forgotten or ignored deliberately for certain reasons
best known to him that he is required to discharge the duty enjoined
upon him under the Constitution. The action of the Speaker rejecting
the resolution vide impugned ruling would neither fall within the
meaning of term "any proceedings in the Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parliament)" used in Article 69, nor such action could be described
as an exercise of power by the Speaker of the House regulating the
procedure or the conduct of business in the Assembly and, therefore,
in my opinion, no question of immunity for such an action can arise
under Article 69 of the Constitution. The impugned ruling as such
was a nullity in the eye of law, worthy of no credence.

10. Adverting to the other aspect of the matter that on

03.04.2022, the session was presided over by the Deputy Speaker
without any explanation why the Speaker did not preside over. This
act of both the Speaker as well as the Deputy Speaker is against the
provisions of Article 53(3), which contemplates that, “when the office
of Speaker is vacant, or the Speaker is absent or is unable to
perform his functions due to any cause, the Deputy Speaker shall
act as Speaker, and if, at that time, the Deputy Speaker is also absent
or is unable to act as Speaker due to any cause, such member as may
be determined by the rules of procedure of the Assembly shall preside
at the meeting of the Assembly”. The record shows that the Deputy
Speaker read out the impugned ruling in the name of the Speaker as
the same was also signed by the Speaker on the same day. Meaning
thereby, on the day when the Deputy Speaker presided over the
SMC No.1 of 2022 8

session of the House and read out the impugned ruling, the office of
the Speaker was neither “vacant” nor was the Speaker “absent” or
“unable to perform his functions”. Even no explanation in this regard
was placed on record subsequently by the Speaker or Deputy
Speaker. For the foregoing reason, I would say without any hesitation
that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker had shown sheer disregard
for the mandatory provisions of the Constitution. The Deputy
Speaker has had no authority to preside over the meeting of the
Assembly and to pass impugned ruling on 03.04.2022 rejecting the
resolution of vote of no confidence against the PM. The so called
ruling of Deputy Speaker is, therefore, without jurisdiction and
coram non- judice. This very act of the Deputy Speaker is sufficient
enough to reflect his biased and prejudiced mind which in my view is
against the norms and dignity of the chair of the Speaker. This very
act, alone, is sufficient to annul the so called ruling which otherwise
also has no legal sanctity.

11. Since the impugned ruling is found null and void and of
no legal effect, the resolution would be deemed pending before the
National Assembly. The PM would continue to suffer from disability
under Explanation of Article 58(1) to advise dissolution of National
Assembly which states that once a "resolution for a vote of no
confidence has been given in the National Assembly" against the
PM he could no longer advise the President to dissolve the National
Assembly under Article 58(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, any
order by the President to dissolve the National Assembly on the
advice of such a PM is also declared as void.
12. Before parting with this order, it has been observed
that the Constitution opens by stating that the exercise of authority
"is a sacred trust" and can only be exercised through "the chosen
representatives of the people." However, this sacred trust was violated
amongst others by the President, PM, the Speaker, the Deputy
Speaker and the Law Minister as the elected representatives of the
people were prevented from voting on the resolution and for such
blatant transgression of the Constitution there must be
consequences and the law must take its course. It is also found that
the series of afore-noted acts right from the rejection of resolution by
the Deputy Speaker till the dissolution of National Assembly by the
President were not performed in the ordinary course of business but
the same were result of premeditation and deliberations in order to
SMC No.1 of 2022 9

defeat the resolution of vote of no confidence while playing fraud on

the Constitution. To my understanding, Article 5 of the Constitution,
which mandates "obedience to the Constitution," was cited to violate
the Constitution. However, whether the stated acts attract Article 6 of
the Constitution is also left open to be determined by the
Parliamentarians as to whether they leave open the doors for such
unconstitutional acts or take suitable measures to stop such like
mess in future.
13. Above are the reasons of our short order supra, which is
reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:
“For detailed reasons to be recorded later and subject to
what is set out therein by way of amplification or
otherwise, these matters are disposed of in the following
terms:
1. The ruling of the Deputy Speaker of the National
Assembly ("Assembly") given on the floor of the House on
03.04.2022 ("Ruling") in relation to the resolution for a
vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister under
Article 95 of the Constitution ("Resolution") (for which
notice had been given by the requisite number of
members of the Assembly on 08.03.2022, and in relation
to which leave was granted to move the Resolution on
28.03.2022), and the detailed reasons for the Ruling
(released subsequently and concurred with by the
Speaker) are declared to be contrary to the Constitution
and the law and of no legal effect, and the same are
hereby set aside.
2. In consequence of the foregoing, it is declared that
the Resolution was pending and subsisting at all times
and continues to so remain pending and subsisting.
3. In consequence of the foregoing, it is declared that
at all material times the Prime Minister was under the
bar imposed by the Explanation to clause (1) of Article
58 of the Constitution and continues to remain so
restricted. He could not therefore have at any time
advised the President to dissolve the Assembly as
contemplated by clause (1) of Article 58.
4. In consequence of the foregoing, it is declared that
the advice tendered by the Prime Minister on or about
03.04.2022 to the President to dissolve the Assembly
was contrary to the Constitution and of no legal effect.
5. In consequence of the foregoing, it is declared that
the Order of the President issued on or about
03.04.2022 dissolving the Assembly was contrary to the
Constitution and of no legal effect, and it is hereby set
aside. It is further declared that the Assembly was in
existence at all times, and continues to remain and be
so.
6. In consequence of the foregoing, it is declared that
all actions, acts or proceedings initiated, done or taken
SMC No.1 of 2022 10

by reason of, or to give effect to, the aforementioned

Order of the President and/or for purposes of holding a
General Election to elect a new Assembly, including but
not limited to the appointment of a care-taker Prime
Minister and Cabinet are of no legal effect and are
hereby quashed.
7. In consequence of the foregoing, it is declared that
the Prime Minister and Federal Ministers, Ministers of
State, Advisers, etc stand restored to their respective
offices as on 03.04.2022.
8. It is declared that the Assembly was at all times,
and continues to remain, in session as summoned by the
Speaker on 20.03.2022 for 25.03.2022 ("Session"), on
the requisition moved by the requisite number of
members of the Assembly on 08.03.2022 in terms of
clause (3) of Article 54 of the Constitution. Any
prorogation of the Assembly by the Speaker prior to its
dissolution in terms as stated above is declared to be of
no legal effect and is set aside.
9. The Speaker is under a duty to summon and hold
a sitting of the Assembly in the present Session, and
shall do so immediately and in any case not later than
10:30 a.m. on Saturday 09.04.2022, to conduct the
business of the House as per the Orders of the Day that
had been issued for 03.04.2022 and in terms as stated
in, and required by, Article 95 of the Constitution read
with Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in the National Assembly Rules, 2007 ("Rules").
10. The Speaker shall not, in exercise of his powers
under clause (3) Article 54 of the Constitution, prorogue
the Assembly and bring the Session to an end, except as
follows:
a. If the Resolution is not passed by the requisite majority
(i.e., the no-confidence resolution is defeated), then at
any time thereafter;
b. If the Resolution is passed by the requisite majority
(i.e., the no-confidence resolution is successful), then at
any time once a Prime Minister is elected in terms of
Article 91 of the Constitution read with Rule 32 of the
Rules and enters upon his office.
11. If the Resolution is passed by the requisite
majority (i.e., the no-confidence resolution is successful)
then the Assembly shall forthwith, and in its present
Session, proceed to elect a Prime Minister in terms of
Article 91 of the Constitution read with Rule 32 of the
Rules and all other enabling provisions and powers in
this behalf and the Speaker and all other persons,
including the Federal Government, are under a duty to
ensure that the orders and directions hereby given are
speedily complied with and given effect to.
12. The assurance given by the learned Attorney
General on behalf of the Federal Government in C.P.
2/2022 on 21.03.2022 and incorporated in the order
made in that matter on the said date shall apply as the
order of the Court: the Federal Government shall not in
SMC No.1 of 2022 11

any manner hinder or obstruct, or interfere with, any

members of the National Assembly who wish to attend
the session summoned as above, and to participate in,
and cast their votes, on the no confidence resolution. It is
further directed that this order of the Court shall apply
both in relation to the voting on the Resolution and (if
such be the case) in relation to the election of a Prime
Minister thereafter. It is however clarified that nothing in
this Short Order shall affect the operation of Article 63A
of the Constitution and consequences thereof in relation
to any member of the Assembly if he votes on the
Resolution or (if such be the case) the election of a Prime
Minister thereafter in such manner as is tantamount to
his defection from the political party to which he belongs
within the meaning of the said Article.
13. The order of the Court made in S.M.C. 1/2022 on
03.04.2022 to the following effect, i.e., "Any order by the
Prime Minister and the President shall be subject to the
order of this Court" shall continue to be operative and
remain in the field, subject to this amplification that it
shall apply also to the Speaker till the aforesaid actions
are completed.”

(Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel)

Judge

Approved for reporting.