The Supreme Court has annulled the ruling of the Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly, after which Hamza Shahbaz ceased to be the Chief Minister and Chaudhry Parvez Elahi was declared the new Chief Minister of Punjab.
According to ARY News, the Supreme Court has annulled the ruling of the Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly, after which Hamza Shehbaz is no longer the Chief Minister and Chaudhry Pervez Elahi has been declared the new Chief Minister of Punjab and the Governor of Punjab at 11:30 tonight from Pervez Elahi. An oath has been ordered.
The Supreme Court, while accepting Parvez Elahi's plea against the deputy speaker's ruling, has said in its order that the deputy speaker's ruling has no legal status. Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi is the Chief Minister of Punjab.
The Supreme Court in its order has said that Chief Secretary Parvez Elahi should issue a notification as Chief Minister and the authority of Hamza Shehbaz and his ministers should be terminated immediately and Hamza Shehbaz should vacate his office immediately.
The Supreme Court in its order has also said that the governor should take oath from Parvez Elahi at 11:30 tonight and if the Governor of Punjab cannot take the oath then he should take the oath from the President of the state Pervez Elahi.
The highest court of the country has declared null and void all the appointments of Hamza Shehbaz so far and in its short order containing 11 pages, it has asked that the deputy speaker should deliver a copy of the decision to the Punjab Assembly immediately and to implement the decision of the court. It should be forwarded to all concerned institutions immediately.
Earlier, the hearing continued for three days on the petitions of Parvaiz Elahi against the ruling of the Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly in the Supreme Court.
After the arguments of the lawyers of the parties were completed, the Supreme Court had reserved the decision of the most important case in the country's history this afternoon.
In this most important case, lawyer Irfan Qadir on behalf of Deputy Speaker, Farooq H. Naik from PPP, Barrister Ali Zafar on behalf of petitioner Pervez Elahi and lawyer Mansoor Awan on behalf of Hamza Shehbaz gave arguments. The Supreme Court reserved the decision after hearing for three consecutive days. While reserving the decision of the most important case in the country's political history, the Chief Justice remarked that the Supreme Court heard all the lawyers in detail. Assisted by
Powers are transferred only through the party head, the Chief Justice
Before reserving the decision, Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial remarked that there is no doubt that the party leader has an important role and the powers are transferred only through the party head, but the instructions for voting are issued by the parliamentary party head.
The Chief Justice said, "Is there any further material that should be looked into?" He said in his remarks that Advocate General Punjab also tried to interpret Article 63A, his effort is good but the interpretation is not correct.
PTI lawyer's big demand
Former Advocate General Punjab and PTI's panel lawyer Ahmed Owais Rostrum in his arguments, before the decision of the Supreme Court, I am putting forward some things, the court also saw them.
Former Advocate General Punjab Ahmad Owais said in his arguments that the issue of Chief Minister Punjab was under discussion for three months, all the members of QLQ knew who to vote for? The court will be requested to see the entire record before the election.
A judge changing his mind repeatedly is not a good example, Chief Justice
In today's hearing, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandyal remarked that the demand for the formation of the full court is nothing but a delaying tactic, we want to deal with the case quickly for governance and resolution of the crisis.
The honorable judge remarked that the real question was who can give instructions to the members? It is clear from the reading of the constitution that the instructions have been given by the parliamentary party, no further legal argument is needed to answer this question, it was not a question that would have constituted a full court.
0 Comments