وزیرِ اعلیٰ پنجاب کے الیکشن کیخلاف درخواستیں منظور، منحرف ارکان کے ووٹ نکال کر گنتی کا حکم

 لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے وزیرِ اعلیٰ پنجاب حمزہ شہباز کے الیکشن کے خلاف پاکستان تحریکِ انصاف کی درخواستیں منظور کر لیں۔پاکستان تحریکِ انصاف (پی ٹی آئی) کی اپیلوں پر جسٹس صداقت علی خان کی سربراہی میں 5 رکنی بینچ نے سماعت کی۔لارجر بینچ میں جسٹس شہرام سرور چوہدری، جسٹس ساجد محمود سیٹھی، جسٹس طارق سلیم شیخ اور جسٹس شاہد جمیل خان بھی شامل ہیں۔لارجر بینچ نے فیصلہ چار ایک کی اکثریت سے سنایا ہے، ایک جج جسٹس ساجد محمود سیٹھی نے فیصلے سے اختلاف کیا۔

عدالت نے اپنے تحریری فیصلے میں کہا ہے کہ نئے الیکشن کا حکم نہیں دیا جا سکتا، دوبارہ الیکشن کا حکم سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے کے خلاف ہو گا۔

لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اپنے فیصلے میں کہا ہے کہ ہم پریزائیڈنگ افسر کے نوٹیفکیشن کو کالعدم کرنے کا بھی نہیں کہہ سکتے، عدالت پریزائیڈنگ افسر کا کردار ادا نہیں کر سکتی۔

عدالتِ عالیہ نے اپنے فیصلے میں کہا ہے کہ منحرف ارکان کے 25 ووٹ نکال کر دوبارہ گنتی کی جائے، دوبارہ رائے شماری میں جس کی اکثریت ہو گی وہ جیت جائے گا۔

لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اپنے فیصلے میں کہا ہے کہ اگر کسی کو مطلوبہ اکثریت نہیں ملتی تو آرٹیکل 130 چار کے تحت سیکنڈ پول ہو گا۔

عدالتِ عالیہ نے اپنے فیصلے میں کہا ہے کہ 25 ووٹ نکالنے کے بعد اکثریت نہ ملنے پر حمزہ شہباز وزیرِ اعلیٰ پنجاب کے عہدے پر قائم نہیں رہیں گے۔

عدالت نے حکم دیا ہے کہ گورنر پنجاب کا یکم جولائی کو طلب کیا گیا اجلاس یقینی بنایا جائے، پنجاب اسمبلی کا اجلاس الیکشن ہونے تک ملتوی نہیں کیا جائے گا، الیکشن مکمل ہونے کے بعد نئے وزیرِ اعلیٰ کا حلف 2 جولائی کو دن 11 بجے یقینی بنایا جائے۔

For the reasons to be followed, decision on writ petitions and appeals heard by this Bench is as under: -

1. The decision by August Supreme Court of not counting votes of defecting members of a political party is squarely applicable to the election of Chief Minister held on 14th April 2022. Relevant excerpt of which is reproduced hereunder: -

“3. Turning to the second question and keeping in mind the answer to the first, it is our view that the vote of any member (including a deemed member) of a Parliamentary Party in a House that is cast contrary to any direction issued by the latter in terms of para (b) of clause (1) of Article 63A cannot be counted and must be disregarded, and this is so regardless of whether the Party Head, subsequent to such vote, proceeds to take, or refrains from taking, action that would result in a declaration of defection. The second question referred to this Court stands answered in the foregoing terms.”

[emphasis supplied]

It is an undeniable fact that 25 members of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf had voted for Mr. Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz, whereas the party had nominated Mr. Pervaiz Ellahi as its candidate. Respondent’s contention that the members have not defected in absence of a direction in terms of Article 63A(1)(b) has no force. The emphasised part of the order, ibid, discloses the intent behind the decision that possibility of defection from the Party line, policy or direction is to be curbed, at the time of poll by the Presiding Officer, regardless of declaration or action by Party Head. It is understood that presence in the House, enlistment on voter list and casting of vote is not prohibited, however the vote so cast, is held not countable.

2. The contention of quashing the Notification No. SO (CAB-II)2-12/2018(VOL-I) dated 30.04.2022, besides direction for second poll under proviso to Article 130(4) has not impressed us. We could, possibly direct fresh election after declaring the election as unlawful but it would nullify the direction by Apex Court to the state functionaries for conduct of election in accordance with the Constitution and the decision by learned Division Bench of this Court, appointing Deputy Speaker as presiding officer and directing for conduct of election on 16th April 2022. We cannot quash the Notification and ask the Presiding Officer to proceed under provisos to Article 130(4), when one of petitioner’s counsel (Mr. Amir Rawn, Advocate) has pleaded that practically 195 votes were casted and the respondent’s contention is that casted votes are 197. Even otherwise, after declaring that 25 votes could not be counted, we cannot assume the role of the Presiding Officer, under Article 130(4), to determine majority of countable casted votes. The Presiding Officer (Deputy Speaker) of the election held on 16th April 2022 is, therefore, directed to recount votes after excluding 25 votes of the defecting members. As a consequence, if required majority, under Article 130(4), is not secured by any candidate, he shall proceed for second and further polls under its provisos for completing the process of election as required under Article 130(4), unless a candidate is elected by majority votes. Though on recounting as directed, the consequential procedure and effect shall be in accordance with the Constitution and Rules made thereunder, nevertheless, for clarity it is explained that Hamza Shahbaz shall cease to be Chief Minister, if he loses the required majority after exclusion of 25 votes by Presiding Officer and the communication of his being elected candidate under Rule 21 along with Notification dated 30.04.2022 shall deem to have been quashed. In this eventuality, functions performed and powers exercised, by Hamza Shahbaz as Chief Minister and his cabinet, in accordance with law, shall be protected under the de facto doctrine.

3. The session, for this purpose, as originally called by the then Governor shall be resumed on 1st July 2022 (Friday) at 4:00 pm without fail. All the functionaries under the Constitution or law, within their respective share of powers, shall act jointly and severally to implement the directions by this Court. The session so resumed shall not be prorogued till the election process is completed and Presiding officer intimates the result of elected Chief Minister to the Governor under the Rule 21. The Governor shall preform his duty, under Article 130(5), of administering oath without any hesitation and by ignoring any apprehension regarding conduct election, at any time before 11:00 am very next day. We cannot ignore the disorder in various sessions of the Provincial Assembly, therefore are constrained to observe and direct that any attempt of disorder from any quarter shall be taken as contempt of court and shall be proceeded accordingly by this Larger Bench on formal information by any person.

4. We allow writ petitions to the extent and manner noted above, however, rest of the prayers in the petitions are declined by dismissing the petitions to this extent.

The Appeals, regarding oath of Chief Minister by Speaker National Assembly, an ancillary matter, are hereby disposed of. The reasons and decision on the constitutional questions, pleaded and argued during proceedings, shall be released later.

5. We appreciate that on our verbal instructions, the print and electronic media has reported proceedings before this Bench professionally and carefully, however, some Vloggers have scandalised the proceedings recently. We, therefore, direct the FIA and PEMRA, having jurisdiction in the matter, to take legal action on their own notice and if so informed by any person. This Larger Bench shall initiate contempt proceedings for scandalizing the proceedings before it, if so brought formally before this Court by any person.

WRIT PETITION NO.30456 OF 2022

Muhammad Sibtain Khan v. Province of the Punjab, etc.

WRIT PETITION NO.30459 OF 2022

Mushtaq Ahmad Malik v. Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, etc.

WRIT PETITION NO.34726 OF 2022

Zainab Umair, etc. v. Province of the Punjab, etc.

WRIT PETITION NO.32665 OF 2022

Mian Mahmood ur Rasheed Ahmad v. Government of the Punjab, etc.

WRIT PETITION NO.30670 OF 2022

Munir Ahmad v. Province of the Punjab, etc.

WRIT PETITION NO.30569 OF 2022

Chaudhary Parvez Elahi v. Province of the Punjab, etc. and

INTRA COURT APPEAL NO.27313 OF 2022

Muhammad Sabtain Khan, etc. v. Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, etc.

INTRA COURT APPEAL NO.28417 OF 2022

Mian Muhammad Aslam, etc. v. Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif, etc.

INTRA COURT APPEAL NO.28418 OF 2022

Mian Mehmood ur Rasheed etc. v. Muhammad Hamza Shahbaz Sharif etc.