PTI moves SC against IHC verdict regarding phase-wise acceptance of resignations
Stay tuned with 24 News HD Android App
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has moved the Supreme Court to challenge an Islamabad High Court (IHC) verdict in a case related to the acceptance of phase-wise resignations of PTI’s members of the National Assembly, reported 24NewsHD TV Channel on Tuesday.
In a petition filed before the apex court, PTI senior leader Asad Umar through Advocate Chaudhry Faisal Hussain has sought annulment of the high court’s verdict.
Chaudhry Faisal argued that the judgment is ‘vague’ and against the law. It is requested to declare the acceptance of phase-wise resignations of PTI’s members of the assembly as illegal and unconstitutional.
The IHC last week dismissed the PTI petition on the issue effectively allowing National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf to exercise his discretion. The IHC also rejected the PTI’s plea to form a larger bench on the issue.
The court ruled that a notification issued following then-Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri’s order was against the constitution.
The petition said that the PTI parliamentarians resigned from the National Assembly to seek a fresh mandate from the people and that Suri had duly approved the resignations. It also claims that the IHC disregarded the material facts of the case at hand and failed to adhere to the principle that each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts. It is further pleaded that Raja Ashraf was violating the rule by piecemeal acceptance of the resignations.
It argued that the court failed to consider inter alia article 64 read with Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly of Pakistan, 2007.
The petition also stated that impugned judgment concluded, through a non-speaking and unreasonable order and that "no law permits the successor office holder i-e the speaker of the National Assembly to alter, modify, review or revise the order of the predecessor with regard to the acceptance of the resignations that have already accepted and notified by his predecessor in office."
The party went on to term the actions as "illegal, perverse and tantamount to abuse of law and authority."