RESEARCH DESIGN: -

TOPIC: INTERFERENCE OF JUDICIARY IN PARLIAMENT UNDERMINE

THE CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF POWERS.
• TITLE: SUPREME COURT SETASIDE DEPUTY SPEAKER’S RULING
THAT WEAKEN PARLIAMENT.
1. INTRODUCTION:
THE QUESTION IN THIS LEGAL RESEARCH IS WHETHER THE CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF
POWER IS PREVAILED IN THE COUNTRY OR NOT? AS PAKISTAN’S POLITICAL SPHERE HAS
WITNESSED SOME UNPRECEDENTED CHANGES IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO. ON THE 3 RD OF
APRIL, THE DEPUTY SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY GAVE A RULING IN WHICH HE
DISMISSED THE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST THE THEN PRIME MINISTER AS ILL-
TENDED AND HAD A CLEAR NEXUS WITH FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. THIS RULING IS IN
CONFORMITY WITH RULE 28 OF THE ASSEMBLY RULES. HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT
TOOK A SUO MOTU NOTICE OF THE DEPUTY SPEAKER’S RULING. THE APEX COURT DISMISSED
THE RULING AND INTERFERED IN THE MATTER OF PARLIAMENT. HERE SC VIOLATES ARTICLE
69 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND RULE 29 OF THE ASSEMBLY RULES AND THESE RULES AND
LAWS ARE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED IN THIS LEGAL RESEARCH. EVEN IN THAT CASE, THAT MATTER
WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN DECIDED WITHIN THE HOUSE, INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE COURTS,
AS PER THE RULES.

2. OBJECTIVE:
THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS LEGAL STUDY IS THAT NO SUCH INSTITUTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED
TO UNDERMINE THE CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CREATE A CRITICAL
SITUATION IN THE COUNTRY AS DONE IN THE PAST.

3. METHODOLOGY:
THIS IS DOCTRINAL RESEARCH, AS IT IS SOLELY BASED ON ARMCHAIR STUDY, BECAUSE THE
TOPIC IS RELATED TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, RULES AND LAWS WHICH ARE
COLLECTED FROM THE LIBRARY. THEREFORE, THIS IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR
THIS RESEARCH.

4. TYPE OF APPROACH:
IT IS BASED ON A CRITICAL APPROACH, BECAUSE THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
IS SOMEHOW CONTRARY TO SUCH RULES AND LAWS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
 5. NATURE OF INFORMATION NEEDED:
THE SOURCE OF THE MATERIAL USED IN THIS RESEARCH IS LARGELY LIBRARY-BASED AND
CONSISTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND LEGAL RULES SUCH AS: RULE 28 AND 29 OF
THE ASSEMBLY RULES AND ARTICLE 69 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH ARE USED AS
PRIMARY SOURCES AND JOURNAL ARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES ON THESE RULES AND
LAWS, ARE USED AS SECONDARY SOURCES.

6. SCOPE OF STUDY: DELIMITATIONS:

THIS RESEARCH INCLUDES THE MATTERS RELATED TO PARLIAMENT AND JUDICIARY UNDER
THE BOUNDARIES OF SEPARATION OF POWERS.

7. SIGNIFICANCE:
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS RESEARCH IS THAT THOROUGH THIS LEGAL STUDY, THE STAKE
HOLDERS SUCH AS PARLIAMENT, WILL THINK ABOUT THE PROPER SOLUTION FOR THIS
PROBLEM AND THE SUGGESTION WHICH IS GIVEN IN THE RESEARCH ALSO HELPFUL FOR
THEM THAT THERE WILL BE A COUNCIL OF ELDERS AND ITS COMPLETE FRAMEWORK IS ALSO
DISCUSSED IN THIS LEGAL RESEARCH.

8. CONCLUSION:
IT IS CONCLUDED THAT IF THE PARLIAMENT DOES NOT TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO STOP
THESE KINDS OF ACTIONS, THEN THERE IS NO CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF POWERS AND NO
RULE OF LAW IN THE COUNTRY. MEANWHILE, THE 1973 CONSTITUTION DRAWS CLEAR LINES
AMONG THE THREE PILLARS OF THE STATE: THE LEGISLATURE, THE EXECUTIVE AND
JUDICIARY. THE CONSTITUTION BARS THESE THREE PILLARS FROM INTERFERENCE IN EACH
OTHER’S DOMAINS, HENCE THE TRICHOTOMY OF POWER EXISTS IN PAKISTAN (AT LEAST ON
PAPER). HOWEVER, THAT TRICHOTOMY OF POWER ENVISAGED BY THE CONSTITUTION
STANDS BRUISED AND VIOLATED TODAY BECAUSE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT OF
APRIL 7.