Political question

2022 PLD 64 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 72-A [as inserted by Elections (Third Amendment) Ordinance (XX of 2021)]Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 89 & 199Constitutional petitionVires of OrdinancePolitical question

Petitioner was a political party and had sought setting aside of the provision inserted by Elections (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 2021

Validity

Involvement of High Court in matters which otherwise could be resolved by Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) was in violation of scheme of the Constitution, which was based on principle of trichotomy of powers

Political questions raised before Courts, by political parties having representation in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) would undermine its sanctity and supremacy

If petitioner party and other opposition parties did not disapprove Elections (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 2021, then High Court had no reason to interfere and usurp Constitutional authority vested in forums representing people of Pakistan

Provision of S.72-A inserted in Elections Act, 2017, through Elections (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 2021, was in public interest because it intended to ensure that no elected office and electorate would remain vacant / unrepresented for an indefinite period

Any interference by High Court would be contrary to public interest and guaranteed fundamental rights of people

High Court declined to exercise its extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2015 PLD 7 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional jurisdictionScopePolitical questionPurely political questions are not justiciable

As a rule, political questions, as far as possible, should not be decided by courts and ought to be left for consideration to wisdom of Parliament

Such rule is not absolute and court does not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review, if aggrieved person can demonstrate that question raised, though having a political content or complexity, involves a legal or constitutional issue.

2015 PLD 156 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Arts. 64 & 199Constitutional petitionMembers of ParliamentVacation of seatsResignation to SpeakerEffectPolitical questionScope

Petitioner contended that when Members of National Assembly from a particular party tendered their resignations, the Speaker of National Assembly was to accept the same

Validity

For a resignation to take effect under Art.64 of the Constitution, it was not enough that member had written it under his or her name addressed to speaker

Crucial test or mandatory prerequisite for the seat to become vacant on resignation, was fulfilment of constitutional duty of Speaker to be satisfied that three factors were established; firstly that it was tendered voluntarily; secondly it was genuine; and lastly that the member actually intended to relinquish, relieve or quit the post, position or seat and thereby vacate the seat

Was not enough that member who had tendered resignation made public announcements in such regard or presented him or herself in mass before the Speaker

Speaker was under constitutional duty to undertake an inquiry personally to satisfy himself regarding three factors or requirements in each case independently

Such three requirements were to be 'proved positively' to the satisfaction of the Speaker

If before inquiry was concluded or/and the Speaker had neither passed any order nor achieved level of satisfaction so required for giving effect to resignation, the member retracted by communicating in any manner, whether in writing or through conduct, such as by making a public announcement or attending the sittings of National Assembly, then resignation written and addressed to Speaker became ineffective as it was no more valid and no further order or action would be required

Resignations had become ineffective and ceased to be valid, as before the Speaker could complete his inquiry and satisfy himself regarding three essential requirements for giving effect, the Members publically announced retraction of resignations and had attended proceedings

Assuming that Speaker had passed an order expressing his satisfaction that resignations were not to take effect, even then the matter could not have been out of the pale of jurisdiction of High Court nor would the petition had been maintainable under Art.199 of the Constitution

Question raised by petitioner was hit by doctrine of political question

Prayers and petition had become infructuous, as before the Speaker could conclude the inquiry, the resignations had been retracted and thus become ineffective and no more valid

Neither the petition was maintainable nor any matter placed before High Court required intervention in exercise of powers and jurisdiction vested in High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 PLD 670 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionPolitical question

Political question was not justiciable in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

2014 PLD 670 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 62(1)(f), 63(1)(g), 66, 69 & 199Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3(1)Intra-court Appeal

Constitutional petition filed before the High Court seeking disqualification of Prime Minister for 'lying" in Parliament

Political question

Factual inquiry

Not justiciable by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Contentions were that a statement made by the Prime Minister on the floor of the National Assembly was contradicted by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) department of the Armed Forces; that as such the Prime Minister had made a false statement, and did not fulfil the qualifications for membership of Parliament as he was not "honest" and "ameen"; and that the Prime Minister had defamed the Armed Forces of Pakistan and was liable to be disqualified under Art. 63(1)(g) of the Constitution

Validity

Present issue raised a political question, which was not justiciable in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

For addressing a political question adequate and sufficient mechanisms were available in the Constitution as well as in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in National Assembly, 2007

Allegation of "lying" against the Prime Minister had to be established before a competent forum, but since the same had not been done in the present case, therefore Art. 62(1)(f) of the Constitution was not attracted

Question whether or not certain statements were made, who made such statements and in what background and context necessitated a factual inquiry

Such factual inquiry could not ordinarily be undertaken by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Prime Minister could not be disqualified under Art.63(1)(g) of the Constitution for allegedly defaming the Armed Forces of Pakistan as there was no conviction against him by a court of competent jurisdiction

Articles 66 & 69 of the Constitution provided certain privileges and immunities to members and proceedings of the Parliament, which could not be inquired into by the courts

Although said privileges and immunities had certain exceptions, but it was not established that the case of Prime Minister fell within any of the exceptions

Constitutional petition seeking disqualification of Prime Minister had been rightly dismissed by the High Court

Intra-court appeal was dismissed accordingly