ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday rejected the request for a stay order against Deputy Speaker Qasim Khan Suri’s decision to delay the National Assembly (NA) session till April 22.
A larger bench, headed by IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah and comprising Justice Amir Farooq and Justice Babar Sattar, heard the petition against the delay in NA session.
The NA Secretariat had earlier announced that the election for the seat of speaker would be held on April 16 at 4pm, with receipt of nomination papers on April 15. However, on Thursday, it was notified that the session would be held on April 22 (Friday), instead of April 16.
The NA Secretariat said the schedule was changed by acting Speaker Suri under Rule 49 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007. The seat has been lying vacant following the resignation of former speaker Asad Qaiser on April 9.
Murtaza Javed Abbasi of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), who filed the petition, was represented by lawyers Mansoor Awan and Zainab Janjua. The petition stated that the IHC should direct the deputy speaker to convene a session on April 16 to conduct the election.
Counsel Mansoor Awan argued that the April 13 circular stated that the assembly would convene on April 22 instead of April 16, attached to the meeting is the election of the speaker of the National Assembly, in response to Justice Amir Farooq’s questions regarding the agenda of the assembly session.
“The National Assembly is functioning without a speaker; the speaker’s office cannot be left vacant,” remarked Chief Justice Athar Minallah adding that this matter was under the purview of the internal proceedings of parliament.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was a period of at least seven days to convene the meeting, as the NA is functioning without a speaker and the deputy speaker is currently exercising the powers of the speaker.
However, CJP Minallah stated that the proceedings were an internal matter of the house, especially since a date has been fixed for the election of a speaker. “There is no such restriction in the rules, only the deputy speaker cannot preside over the meeting on the day of his election,” he added.
The petitioner’s counsellor disagreed with the court, stating that the matter could not be linked to the internal proceedings. “This is only being done to prolong the case and use delaying tactics,” the lawyer stated, arguing that courts were entitled to intervene on these grounds.
The CJP upheld that the court could not interfere with the “dignity of parliament”, adding that there was no reason to doubt the deputy speaker’s intentions.
However, the court decided to take up the matter again on April 22, and issued notices to Suri and other respondents for April 22. Notices were also issued to secretary of the National Assembly and secretary of parliamentary affairs for April 22.
