صدارتی ریفرنس:سپریم کورٹ نےمنحرف ارکان سے متعلق آرٹیکل 63 اے کافیصلہ سنادیا

arifkarim

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
یار کچھ چیزیں میرے ذہن سے محو ہو گئی ہیں، اس فیصلے میں کوئی غیر متوقع چیز نہیں ہے پھر کیا سوچ کے آخر اس وقت کی اپوزیشن نے عدم اعتماد کا پلان بنایا؟ خاص طور پر پنجاب میں جہاں عدم اعتماد اور حکومت سازی میں منحرف اراکین کی مدد لی گئی ہے۔
پلان اپوزیشن نے نہیں امریکہ اور باجوہ نے بنایا تھا۔ کھوتی اپوزیشن ٹشو پیپر کی طرح استعمال ہوئی ہے کھوتے
A3A183F1-D3C1-418C-8C65-20E7B6B7DA6F.jpeg

Bubber Shair Siberite
 

nawaz.sharif

Senator (1k+ posts)
The Chief Minister shall be elected by the votes of the majority of the total membership of the Provincial Assembly:

That's the thing, without dissidents you don't have majority.
Yes - so it says if no member secures majority of membership then a second poll will be held and whoever gets majority of those present will win.

So first poll = majority of all membership
second poll = majority of present - so even if 100 members are present, the one who gets 51 votes will win.
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
I wish PML-N will wake up and realise what damage this view of supreme court caused to the constitution of Pakistan.
Don't forget this clause was added to the constitution by nawaz sharifs govt in the 14th amendment in 1997

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan (Urdu: آئین پاکستان میں چودہویں ترمیم) was an amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan passed in 1997, during the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League party. It subjected Members of Parliament to very strict party discipline. Party leaders received unlimited power to dismiss any of their legislators from Parliament if they spoke or voted against their party.[1] The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of Pakistan was to prevent the switching of parties to form a strong coalition government or to become a strong opposition.

Now why are you crying when you are getting a taste of your own medicine?
 

arifkarim

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Yes - so it says if no member secures majority of membership then a second poll will be held and whoever gets majority of those present will win.

So first poll = majority of all membership
second poll = majority of present - so even if 100 members are present, the one who gets 51 votes will win.
Lotas vote cannot be counted in re election Patwari Haramkhor
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
Yes - so it says if no member secures majority of membership then a second poll will be held and whoever gets majority of those present will win.

So first poll = majority of all membership
second poll = majority of present - so even if 100 members are present, the one who gets 51 votes will win.
In any case, like I said you don't have the numbers in any scenario.
 

Sn Sunny

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
A dissenting vote is a vote in Parliament . Each one of them can exercise it . Why it has to be according to the leader's wish. These members are chosen by the public and they are elected from the public vote. If a party head can get lotas to form the government, then the party members also have a right to vote against party lines . It works both ways. Parties are allowed to get the independent members to switch . The party member should also have a right to vote according to their wishes. And as I said, individual members in VNC movement doesn't make much different unless the government is a minority government and depends on others members to keep them in power.
Not leader wishes actually it's party policy
Sorry public doesn't choose a member for own wishes

If party policy having a legal value then no lotas have guts to join any party
 

jigrot

Minister (2k+ posts)
I agree with you in my post already. They should have waited but now they are in Government and IK should wait. it seems like they are all pest of their own interests and no one cares about the country and its people.
Every decision has a price tag and every choice has a cost. I hope a best decision will be made which will not cost a lot.
 

HIDDEN

Minister (2k+ posts)
Individual votes do not count to affect the Government. It is only when the VNC is given that it become magnified. Where does it say that a member of parliament can't vote against the Government policies ? Had that been the case, SC would have easily decided the case long ago. The new ruling that their vote is not counted is an abstract . There is no law which denies them their vote even if it against their own party.
Supreme court has decided that they can caste their votes, but the votes won't be counted.

Individual votes, when they consolidate to become 15 within a party holding thin majority in the parliament, they count. 15 votes can't decide about the future of other 150 votes specially when those 15 members won the elections on party ticket.

Sorry, no one can give it any kind of spin. People vote for Imran Khan's, Bhutto's, or Sharif's vision and manifesto, a handful number of people can't decide after taking votes in the name of the party. If they are so concerned, they should resign, go back to the public and expose the government. If public (that consists of learned people as well) understands their concerns, it will not vote for the same party again.

And the constitution talks about votes in relations to:
(i) election of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister; or
(ii) a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or
(iii) a Money Bill or a Constitution (Amendment) Bill;

Meaning, even money bill that is passed multiple times in a government's single tenure.
 

Siberite

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Not leader wishes actually it's party policy
Sorry public doesn't choose a member for own wishes

If party policy having a legal value then no lotas have guts to join any party
Who makes party policies ? What stopped any leader violating the party policy once in power and specially when he doesn't fear any vote of confident in which his own party members can vote against him ? Now. think about it, If NS, IK, Zardari are in power, anyone can even think about voting against them if they have no protection for their individual vote right ?
 
Last edited:

Meme

Minister (2k+ posts)
I don't think that it was a very good idea to revive the rule who was already on his own head ,slipping down . However, now since they done that , it is their responsibilities to provide relief to the people, fix the economy and stabilize the country . If it takes the detention of IK , then be it. But they must be given a fair amount of time . 3 weeks are not the right time to inquire about their performance specially when the economy was left in a terrible state . I will give them another 2 months to see their performance,.

One the other hand, just look at this addict. He can't wait another 12 months . He wants to continue to destabilize the country and never let the economy to turn around . Because he is fearing the worst if the country gets back to its own feet and things start to improve. And that is why he is doing what he is doing . There is no point taking heat for his jokers activities.
بات یہ ہے کہ فیصلہ ساز قوّت پنڈی میں ہے۔ جن لوگوں نے پی ڈی ایم کو تحریک عدم اعتماد کے لیے
go ahead
دیا تھا، عمران کے بڑے جلسوں اور گالیوں کے بعد اب دباؤ کا شکار ہیں۔ وہ اب حکومت کے پیچھے کھڑے ہونے کو تیار نہیں ہیں اور نہ ہی انہیں یقین دلا رہے ہیں کہ عمران کے دباؤ کے بعد میں، حکومت کے مشکل اور غیر مقبول فیصلے کے بعد بساط نہیں الٹ دیں گے۔ ن لیگ غیر مقبول فیصلوں کے بعد فورا انتخابات میں نہیں جانا چاہے گی۔ تو یہ سارا معاملہ ہے، فی الوقت سب کچھ الجھاو کا شکار ہے۔ اسٹیبلشمنٹ کو انہیں تحریک عدم اعتماد کے لیے
go ahead
نہیں دینا چاہیے تھا اب دے دیا ہے تو حکومت کے پیچھے کھڑا ہونا چاہیے تاکہ جلد فیصلے لے سکیں جو پہلے ہی تاخیر کا شکار ہیں۔
 

HIDDEN

Minister (2k+ posts)
Article 130: see details in red below

"second poll shall be held between the members who secure the two highest numbers of votes in the first poll and the member who secures a majority of votes of the members present" -

130.The Cabinet:
(1)There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers, with the Chief Minister at its head, to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions.
(2)The Provincial Assembly shall meet on the twenty-first day following the day on which a general election to the Assembly is held, unless sooner summoned by the Governor.
(3)After the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, the Provincial Assembly shall, to the exclusion of any other business, proceed to elect without debate one of its members to be the Chief Minister.
(4)The Chief Minister shall be elected by the votes of the majority of the total membership of the Provincial Assembly:

What if 10 dissidents come back? Supreme court hasn't de seated them.
PMLN/ ECP are in a catch 22 situation. If ECP disqualifies them, new elections will be held in their constituencies in three months, and there is a 99% chance that PTI will win the elections.

If ECP doesn't denotify them, and only 10 come back, plus 5 PMLN dissidents (confirmed as we know) abstain (because their is no disqualification), Hamza will again lose his CMship.

The best way for PMLN at the moment is to give Punjab to PTI, and pass time in Center. That's the most they can do.
 

Siberite

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Supreme court has decided that they can caste their votes, but the votes won't be counted.

Individual votes, when they consolidate to become 15 within a party holding thin majority in the parliament, they count. 15 votes can't decide about the future of other 150 votes specially when those 15 members won the elections on party ticket.

Sorry, no one can give it any kind of spin. People vote for Imran Khan's, Bhutto's, or Sharif's vision and manifesto, a handful number of people can't decide after taking votes in the name of the party. If they are so concerned, they should resign, go back to the public and expose the government. If public (that consists of learned people as well) understands their concerns, it will not vote for the same party again.

And the constitution talks about votes in relations to:
(i) election of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister; or
(ii) a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or
(iii) a Money Bill or a Constitution (Amendment) Bill;

Meaning, even money bill that is passed multiple times in a government's single tenure.
Lol. what a mocker of a decision. They can cost the vote but their vote won't be counted .... It another black book definition freshly extracted by the Judges sitting on Toilet .

I think you are misrepresenting parliamentary system. These members are elected by people for a certain term . They are representing the constituencies not individual parties and are accountable to their voters. Their membership is for their full tenure . It is same as a PM is elected from the people vote and the member chose him for a fixed term . He can only be remove from the votes of the parliament members even if he goes against the policies of the party . The party discipline and the party policy applies to the members within the scope of their membership. The most a party can do to such a member who votes against the party policy is either expel him from the party or file a case in EC to have him remove legally. His dissent vote still be a valid and legit vote and it should be counted
Its a stupid decision of SC that they can vote but the vote won't be counted . They are trying to rewrite the new concept of necessity.
 

HIDDEN

Minister (2k+ posts)
Yes - so it says if no member secures majority of membership then a second poll will be held and whoever gets majority of those present will win.

So first poll = majority of all membership
second poll = majority of present - so even if 100 members are present, the one who gets 51 votes will win.
It is simple, Lotas will be counted to calculate the total available membership, but their votes won't be counted.

Yeh tou saazish, ziad'ti, mudakhilat, rape... sab kuchh kardia SC ne.. although I am still not happy with the verdict as the dissidents shouldn't have been disqualified for life.
 

HIDDEN

Minister (2k+ posts)
Lol. what a mocker of a decision. They can cost the vote but their vote won't be counted .... It another black book definition freshly extracted by the Judges sitting on Toilet .

I think you are misrepresenting parliamentary system. These members are elected by people for a certain term . They are representing the constituencies not individual parties and are accountable to their voters. Their membership is for their full tenure . It is same as a PM is elected from the people vote and the member chose him for a fixed term . He can only be remove from the votes of the parliament members even if he goes against the policies of the party . The party discipline and the party policy applies to the members within the scope of their membership. The most a party can do to such a member who votes against the party policy is either expel him from the party or file a case in EC to have him remove legally. His dissent vote still be a valid and legit vote and it should be counted
Its a stupid decision of SC that they can vote but the vote won't be counted . They are trying to rewrite the new concept of necessity.
I won't comment of SC's verdict as the dissidents should have been disqualified for life in my opinion. SC has given a big relief to them.

BUT... on your latter comment, I respectfully disagree.

In Pakistan, political parties win elections. There have been occasions when non party polls were held, and your comment would have made sense if that had happened in 2018.

The basic idea to introduce 14th amendment was to stop horse trading. If you are a law enforcement official and you see an individual planning to kill someone, you will definitely take action before he implements his plan. SC has upheld the spirit of the constitution by not allowing counting of their votes. However, because they have casted the votes and gone rogue, they should be de seated, and in my opinion, disqualified for life.
 

Jazbaati

Minister (2k+ posts)
Constitution gives free choice of vote to every member. This is a universal right that people will cast their vote with full independence . Forcing people to stay with the Government policies which may run against the country is a dangerous path . If you take away the right of the individual members of Parliament to speak against their own Government, then you are inviting trouble and pave a way for conspiracies and allow the undemocratic forces to play a rule .

What you want has already resulted in horsetrading where people have been bought out and a conspiracy has led to a PM being removed. The SC decision puts a stop to that kind of underhand tactic.
 

Siberite

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I won't comment of SC's verdict as the dissidents should have been disqualified for life in my opinion. SC has given a big relief to them.

BUT... on your latter comment, I respectfully disagree.

In Pakistan, political parties win elections. There have been occasions when non party polls were held, and your comment would have made sense if that had happened in 2018.

The basic idea to introduce 14th amendment was to stop horse trading. If you are a law enforcement official and you see an individual planning to kill someone, you will definitely take action before he implements his plan. SC has upheld the spirit of the constitution by not allowing counting of their votes. However, because they have casted the votes and gone rogue, they should be de seated, and in my opinion, disqualified for life.
Horse trading should be proven. SC can't just assume that the horse trading has taken place unless evidence of such acts are presented to them.Their argument was to reject dissenting votes .There is no evidence presented in court to prove horse trading .
 
Sponsored Link