Imran Khan seeks review of Pak SC verdict on Speaker Suri’s ruling on no-confidence vote

The discharge of constitutional obligations could not be called into question before any court under the Constitution: Mr. Khan

Pakistan’s former prime minister Imran Khan has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the apex court’s April 7 decision on the ruling of the then National Assembly speaker on the crucial vote of no-confidence.

In a major blow to Mr. Khan, the Supreme Court had struck down then National Assembly Speaker Qasim Suri's controversial move to dismiss a no-confidence motion against the cricketer-turned-politician.

Mr. Suri, who is associated with Mr. Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, on April 3 dismissed the no-confidence motion against the ex-premier, claiming that it was linked with a "foreign conspiracy" to topple the government and hence was not maintainable. Minutes later, President Arif Alvi dissolved the National Assembly on the advice of Mr. Khan who had effectively lost the majority.

The Express Tribune newspaper reported on Friday that in his review petition on Thursday, Mr. Khan pleaded that Article 248 of the Constitution barred any other institution from interfering in the affairs of Parliament and Mr. Suri's ruling was in accordance with Article 5, when he rejected the no-confidence motion.

The review petition, filed through Imtiaz Siddiqui and Chaudhry Faisal Hussain, stated that Article 248 did not make the applicant answerable for exercising any constitutional powers before any court. It contended that the bench had erred to appreciate the provisions of Articles 66, 67 and 69, the report said.

“The Apex Court has erred to appreciate the mandate of the Constitution which ensures that Parliament, as well as the members/officers thereof, the President as well as the Prime Minister, are not answerable in the exercise of their functions as well as discretionary powers before any Court,” the plea said.

Also, their discharge of constitutional obligations could not be called into question before any court under the Constitution, it added.