Chaudhary PARVEZ ELAHI vs DEPUTY SPEAKER, PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY OF PUNJAB, LAHORE arts

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Chaudhary PARVEZ ELAHI VS DEPUTY SPEAKER, PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY OF PUNJAB, LAHORE arts. 63a(1)(b), 130(4) & 184(3)---Runoff election for the post of Provincial Chief Minister---Deputy Speaker of Provincial assembly by relying on short judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Supreme Court Bar association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2022 SC 488) read with article 63a(1)(b) of the Constitution gave a ruling to exclude ten votes cast in favour of petitioner-candidate on the basis that they were cast against the direction of the Party Head---Plea of respondents and interveners that present petition should be heard by a Full Court as in the judgment reported as District Bar association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 SC 401), ('the District Bar association case') the Supreme Court had issued an authoritative interpretation of article 63a(1)(b) of the Constitution, namely, that the Party Head has the power to issue a direction to members of the Parliamentary Party on how to vote in the matters specified in the said provision; that such settled view was stated in paragraph 112 of the opinion of Justice Sheikh azmat Saeed (as he then was)---Validity---By commenting on a matter beyond the scope of the legal dispute before the Court in the District Bar association case, the statement in paragraph 112 of Justice Sheikh azmat Saeed's opinion was unnecessary to the decision of that case, and as a result, it did not constitute the ratio decidendi of his own opinion; it was instead a passing remark amounting to an obiter dictum---Furthermore out of the seventeen Judges presiding over the District Bar association case, nine Judges, constituting the majority, did not concur with the view of Justice Sheikh azmat Saeed (as he then was)---In such circumstances paragraph 112 of Justice Sheikh azmat Saeed's opinion was merely a plurality view, which was different from a majority opinion (or view) of the Court---as a result, paragraph 112 failed to command the support of the requisite majority of the Full Court i.e., nine Judges from a total of seventeen Judges---Request for forming a Full Court to hear present matter was declined.

Chaudhary PARVEZ ELAHI vs DEPUTY SPEAKER, PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY OF PUNJAB, LAHORE arts — 2023 PLD 539 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD