Constitutional Question of Precedent

First and foremost, the featured image of the article is for attention and it does not disregard the honorable justices of the supreme court. I will explain it later. For now, please guide me in comments on a constitutional question.

If President Arif Alvi asks Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif to get a vote of confidence under Article 3-91 of the Constitution in the National Assembly.

On whose directive will the 24 PTI MNAs be bound?

Party Head Imran Khan or parliamentary leader Raja Riaz.

According to PTI’s recent constitutional interpretation, its 24 MNAs will be bound by parliamentary leader Raja Riaz’s instructions and his vote as well.

The count will be done as per the instructions of the parliamentary party head.

The practical interpretation of this is that Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif has the confidence of 174+24=198 members of the National Assembly.

If Tehreek-e-Insaaf insists on this constitutional interpretation. It is virtually impossible to remove him from office through a no-confidence motion for the next one and a half years.

On the contrary, if Chaudhary Pervaiz Elahi is supported by Tehreek-e-Insaf in Punjab and if he becomes the chief minister, he will have the trust of 186 members of the provincial.

If so, Governor Punjab Baligh ur Rehman, under Article 7-130 of the Constitution can ask Ch Pervez Elahi to get a vote of confidence simply because in the absence of one MPA Chaudhary Pervaiz will lose the position of CM.

(7) The Chief Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor, but the Governor shall not exercise his powers under this clause unless he is satisfied that the Chief Minister does not command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Provincial Assembly, in which case he shall summon the Provincial Assembly and require the Chief Minister to obtain a vote of confidence from the Assembly.

It seems likely that Tehreek-e-Insaf will give a strong Punjab and federation to Muslim League for a temporary benefit provided that Tehreek-e-Insaf and the leaders of Insaf stick to their recent constitutional interpretation.

The Doctrine of Precedent and Common Law

  • The doctrine of precedent is the very basis of the common law
  • Also referred to as judge-made law is the result of court rulings
  • Equally important as the law enacted by Parliament is the result of the legislative procedure in the UK Parliament-made law
  • It enables a more flexible reaction to certain provisions of the legislation or concrete case details, which are not covered by statutes
  • Also known as stare decisis is lat. ,,to stand by decided matter”

It is hoped that this point will remain before the constitutional experts.

Whereas, these three politicians are being referred to as three stooges. Because they can be.

Pages: 1 2 3

Click to comment

You May Also Like

Exit mobile version