• PTI chairman challenges Supreme Court’s ruling against former deputy speaker.
• “There are several loopholes in the court’s April 7 decision that need to be reviewed,” says Khan. 
• On May 9, the CJP took suo moto notice of the ruling against deputy speaker.

ISLAMABAD: PTI Chairman Imran Khan on Thursday challenged the Supreme Court’s verdict against former deputy speaker Qasim Suri’s ruling regarding the no-confidence motion.

The former prime minister has filed a petition in the apex court against its decision in the suo motu notice. 

On April 3, the former deputy speaker rejected the vote of no-confidence against the then prime minister Imran Khan in the National Assembly on the grounds that it was part of an international conspiracy. 

In his petition, former PM Imran Khan said that the Supreme Court had ordered on April 7 to carry out the voting on the no-confidence motion on April 9. 

“There are several loopholes in the court’s April 7 decision that need to be reviewed,” he said. 

The PTI chairman said that the deputy speaker implemented Article 5 of the Constitution during the proceedings of the National Assembly. 

On May 9, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial took suo motu notice of the ruling against the deputy speaker of the National Assembly after consulting 12 judges of the Supreme Court. 

In its verdict, the Supreme Court restored the National Assembly after it declared the government’s decision to dissolve the assembly and NA Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri’s ruling against the Constitution.

The top court had ordered the then National Assembly speaker Asad Qasier to summon the session on Saturday (April 9) no later than 10:30am to allow the vote on the no-confidence motion against the premier.

The Supreme Court had also “declared that the assembly was in existence at all times, and continues to remain and be so”.

The apex court also stated that the speaker cannot prorogue the assembly and bring the session to an end if the no-trust motion fails or after a new prime minister is elected if a no-confidence motion is passed.

The court ruled that no member will be barred from casting their vote. It also stated that if the no-trust motion fails then the government will continue to carry out its affairs.