Soon after the Supreme Court of Pakistan set aside Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri’s ruling to dismiss the no-trust resolution against Prime Minister Imran, and the dissolution of the National Assembly by President Arif Alvi on the PM's advice on April 7,2022, Qurat-ul-Ain Balouch, Pakistani-American singer-songwriter, tweated: “Can we all come out and reject this decision? What kind of democracy is this where the people’s votes have no value over the MNAs who can easily sell out their souls and their country men. I stand with Imran Khan and for your own sake, Stand up for yourself. #SupremeCourt”
As a legal practioner and an admirer of her art, I would like to answer her questions.
“Can we all come out and reject this decision?”
Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan address her concerns succinctly. Article 189 on Decisions of Supreme Court binding on other Courts states: “Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other courts in Pakistan.”
Article 190 on Action in aid of Supreme Court is: “All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.”
The Constitution of Pakistan is the basic social contract that binds citizens with the state, and keeps all provinces weaved into a federation. The constitution is presumed, for legal and practical purposes, to be the ultimate will of the people of Pakistan, and therefore all laws of the land can only emanate from it.
The said ‘ultimate will’ of the people has incorporated two independent articles declaring that any and all decisions of the Supreme Court shall be final, binding on all courts of the land, and therefore all executive and judicial authorities of the land shall act to ensure implementation of the decisions announced. In layman’s terms, the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be ‘rejected’, for the Constitution directs all judicial and executive authorities to ensure that the Supreme Court’s orders and judgments are implemented in true letter and spirit.
Therefore, the only logical answer to Balouch’s first question is in negative; she and others cannot “Come out and reject this decision”.
What kind of democracy is this where the people’s votes have no value over the MNAs who can sell out their souls and their countrymen [?]
The question presumes that MNAs, who may vote against Khan on April 9 -- against his directions as the PTI’s chairman and face punitive measures provided under Article 63A of the Constitution -- are not listening to their conscience while casting their votes, and in actuality are selling their votes to the opposition. The reasoning is prima facie flawed, for despite having all executives under his thumb as the PM, Khan couldn’t conjure up evidence to support his party’s stance on money being used to buy votes. No evidence whatsoever has been brought to the notice of the masses, disclosing a transfer of money from the opposition to the PTI’s allegedly defecting members.
The democratic laws of Pakistan presume all persons are innocent until proven otherwise. So, it would be against all principles of natural justice and democracy to ventilate baseless accusations against honourable members of the parliament without providing corroborative proof.
As to what kind of democracy is this “where the people’s votes have no value over the MNAs?”, the answer is that all countries where a parliamentary system of democracy exists. Since Pakistan is one such country, the votes of MNAs count, and presumably votes of their respective constituents.
The Constitution of Pakistan, in its preamble, declares that “the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people”. This excerpt sets out the basic theme on the basis of which democracy is to be operated in Pakistan. Another basic principle of the West Minister parliamentary form of democracy is that the chief executive of the country, the prime minister in our case, must at all times of his reign command the confidence of the majority, a simple majority in Pakistan, of the people of Pakistan.
Since MNAs are elected directly by the people of Pakistan, it is assumed that their votes are in effect votes of their electors -- common people of Pakistan.
What would happen if the members who were speculated to defect on April 3, 2022, do not violate their party chairman’s directions, and thus abstain from voting in favour of the no-confidence motion on April 9, 2022. The plain answer is that the joint opposition’s numbers, even minus the alleged defectors, are more than that of the treasury benches – i.e. 172. A simple majority is required for forming a government and electing a prime minister, and considering the simple majority of the opposition benches, their chosen representative has the right to be elected as the prime minister.
It is necessary to point out that democracy, against what has been posited by Balouch, isn’t a one-person show, but rather the expression of the collective will of the people of the country. The only way of expressing collective will in civilised democracies is through their chosen representatives, MNAs.
Even if Khan isn’t part of the picture, democracy shall continue, thrive, and prosper.
As a legal practioner and an admirer of her art, I would like to answer her questions.
“Can we all come out and reject this decision?”
Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan address her concerns succinctly. Article 189 on Decisions of Supreme Court binding on other Courts states: “Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other courts in Pakistan.”
Article 190 on Action in aid of Supreme Court is: “All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.”
The Constitution of Pakistan is the basic social contract that binds citizens with the state, and keeps all provinces weaved into a federation. The constitution is presumed, for legal and practical purposes, to be the ultimate will of the people of Pakistan, and therefore all laws of the land can only emanate from it.
The said ‘ultimate will’ of the people has incorporated two independent articles declaring that any and all decisions of the Supreme Court shall be final, binding on all courts of the land, and therefore all executive and judicial authorities of the land shall act to ensure implementation of the decisions announced. In layman’s terms, the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be ‘rejected’, for the Constitution directs all judicial and executive authorities to ensure that the Supreme Court’s orders and judgments are implemented in true letter and spirit.
Therefore, the only logical answer to Balouch’s first question is in negative; she and others cannot “Come out and reject this decision”.
What kind of democracy is this where the people’s votes have no value over the MNAs who can sell out their souls and their countrymen [?]
The question presumes that MNAs, who may vote against Khan on April 9 -- against his directions as the PTI’s chairman and face punitive measures provided under Article 63A of the Constitution -- are not listening to their conscience while casting their votes, and in actuality are selling their votes to the opposition. The reasoning is prima facie flawed, for despite having all executives under his thumb as the PM, Khan couldn’t conjure up evidence to support his party’s stance on money being used to buy votes. No evidence whatsoever has been brought to the notice of the masses, disclosing a transfer of money from the opposition to the PTI’s allegedly defecting members.
It is necessary to point out that democracy, against what has been posited by Balouch, isn’t a one-person show, but rather the expression of the collective will of the people of the country. The only way of expressing collective will in civilised democracies is through their chosen representatives, MNAs.
The democratic laws of Pakistan presume all persons are innocent until proven otherwise. So, it would be against all principles of natural justice and democracy to ventilate baseless accusations against honourable members of the parliament without providing corroborative proof.
As to what kind of democracy is this “where the people’s votes have no value over the MNAs?”, the answer is that all countries where a parliamentary system of democracy exists. Since Pakistan is one such country, the votes of MNAs count, and presumably votes of their respective constituents.
The Constitution of Pakistan, in its preamble, declares that “the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people”. This excerpt sets out the basic theme on the basis of which democracy is to be operated in Pakistan. Another basic principle of the West Minister parliamentary form of democracy is that the chief executive of the country, the prime minister in our case, must at all times of his reign command the confidence of the majority, a simple majority in Pakistan, of the people of Pakistan.
Since MNAs are elected directly by the people of Pakistan, it is assumed that their votes are in effect votes of their electors -- common people of Pakistan.
What would happen if the members who were speculated to defect on April 3, 2022, do not violate their party chairman’s directions, and thus abstain from voting in favour of the no-confidence motion on April 9, 2022. The plain answer is that the joint opposition’s numbers, even minus the alleged defectors, are more than that of the treasury benches – i.e. 172. A simple majority is required for forming a government and electing a prime minister, and considering the simple majority of the opposition benches, their chosen representative has the right to be elected as the prime minister.
It is necessary to point out that democracy, against what has been posited by Balouch, isn’t a one-person show, but rather the expression of the collective will of the people of the country. The only way of expressing collective will in civilised democracies is through their chosen representatives, MNAs.
Even if Khan isn’t part of the picture, democracy shall continue, thrive, and prosper.