JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.---The petitioner was the Speaker of the Balochistan Provincial Assembly with effect from 2008. One of the members namely Moulana Abdul Wassey, the Senior Minister, Government of Balochistan, moved a motion of no confidence against him under Article 53(7)-C of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 (called hereinafter "the Constitutions"). On the basis of said motion, a resolution was passed against the petitioner on 20th December 2012, resulting into his removal. The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the procedure adopted on the motion and the resolution preferred the instant petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since the session of the Assembly was already summoned by the Governor of Balochistan, therefore, the members of treasury bench were not entitled to move the motion in the said motion. He further stated that the motion was moved by Moulana Abdul Wassey, whereas, on the point of order, the resolution was tabled by another member viz. Ainullah Shams, which is against the provisions of the Constitution as well as the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Assembly. He next argued that as per the rule 179 of the Balochistan Provincial Assembly Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business 1974 (called hereinafter 'the Rules'), a notice should have been issued to every member before moving the motion for no confidence, but according to him the notice has not been issued to each and every member, which is an illegality and irregularity. He further contended that as per sub-rule 5 of rule 11, at the time of moving the motion, it is a condition precedent that 1/4th of the total members of the Assembly have to rise on their seats to get permission for carrying out the motion, but this procedure has also been violated. According to 'the learned counsel,- the motion was to be submitted before the Secretary of the Assembly, but instead, it was submitted before the Additional Secretary, hence committed an illegality and irregularity. The learned counsel stated that certain members after casting their votes, showed their ballot papers to the officials, which is against rule 11 and have failed to maintain the secrecy of ballot paper, on the basis whereof, their, votes were liable to be cancelled, but these were counted. The learned counsel lastly argued that the procedure provided for the resolution of no confidence against the Speaker has been violated, which vitiates the entire proceedings, but the presiding officer did not consider this aspect of the case, hence has committed an illegality and irregularity. The petitioner, therefore, requested for setting aside of the impugned notification dated 26th December 2012, whereby he has been removed from his office.
3. Learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the contention and stated that the procedure for carrying out the resolution was the internal affair of the Assembly, the same cannot be called in question through the Constitution Petition before this Court. They further stated that even otherwise, no violation of the rules has been committed by any of the members of the Assembly; therefore, the allegations in this behalf are false and fabricated.
They stated that no constitutional violation in proceedings has been pointed out by the petitioner.
The petitioner has been removed by the majority of the members of the Assembly; therefore, he is bound to accept. The decision of the House.
4. The objection regarding the maintainability of the petition is of a substantial nature; therefore, we intend to resolve it at the earliest. The Constitution deals with different affairs of-the Parliament, out of which, Article 67 empowers the Parliament to frame rules to regulate its internal affaiRs, Similarly, Article 53(7) clause "C' of the Constitution assigns powers to the members of an Assembly to remove a Speaker or a Deputy Speaker from their offices by a resolution. The Article is reproduced herein-below: "53. (7) The office of Speaker or Deputy Speaker shall become vacant if - (c) he is removed from office by a resolution of Assembly, of which not less than seven days' notice has been given and which is passed by the votes of the majority of the total membership of the Assembly'
5. It is to be noted that the above provision of the Constitution provides two conditions for the removal of a Speaker or a Deputy Speaker. Firstly, the issuance of seven days prior notices before tabling a resolution, and secondly, the resolution must be carried out with a majority of the total membership of the Assembly. The record reflects that the motion was moved on 19th December 2012 and notices were issued within stipulated period accordingly. Finally, a resolution was tabled on 26th December 2012, which was supported by 47 members out of 65 members of the Assembly by casting their votes. Only one vote was cast against the resolution and rest of the members, including the petitioner, abstained from casting their votes. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any constitutional violation in the proceedings.
6. So far the objection of the petitioner with regard to the violation of the rules of business by the members during the proceedings of the no confidence motion is concerned, it is a fact that the Constitution does not provide a detailed procedure for conducting an elections of a Speaker or a Deputy Speaker and a no confidence motion against them; The Assembly by exercising powers under Article 67 of the Constitution, framed the Rules to regulate its internal affaiRs, Rule 11 prescribes a detailed procedure for a No Confidence Motion against a Speaker, which is reproduced herein below:-- "11. (1) A Member may give notice to the Secretary, in writing, of a motion for leave to move resolution under paragraph (c) of clause (7) of Article 53 read with. Article 127 of the Constitution for the removal of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker and the Secretary shall as soon as may be, circulate the notice to the MembeRs,
(2) The motion for leave to move the resolution shall be entered in the name of the Member concerned in the Orders of the Day for the first working day after the expiry of 7 clear days from the date of the receipt of the notice under sub-rule (1).
' No other item shall be included in the Orders of the Day, for the day fixed for a motion for leave to move a resolution under sub-rule (2).
(4) The Speaker or, as the case may be, the Deputy Speaker shall not preside over a sitting of the Assembly when a resolution for his own removal is being considered.
(5) Immediately after the motion referred to in sub-rule (2) has been moved, the Presiding Officer shall call such of the Members as may be in favour of the leave being granted to rise in their seats and if at least one fourth of the total membership of the Assembly does not so rise, he shall declare that the Member has not the leave of the Assembly, or such membership so rise, call upon the Member concerned to move the resolution.
(6) Except with the permission of the Presiding Officer, a speech on the resolution shall not exceed fifteen minutes in duration: Provided that the Speaker, or as the case may be, the Deputy Speaker, against whom the motion has been moved and the mover of the resolution may speak for thirty minutes or, such-longer time as the Presiding Officer may allow.
(7) After a motion referred in sub-rule (2) has been moved, the Assembly shall, not be adjourned until the motion for leave is disposed of or if leave is granted, the resolution has been voted upon.
(8) Voting on the resolution shall be by secret ballet, which shall be held in such manner as the Presiding. Officer may direct.
(9) If these sessions during which notice has been given under sub-rule (1) has been convened by the Speaker in pursuance of clause (3) of Article 54 read with' Article 127 of the Constitution, the Assembly shall not be prorogued, until the motion is disposed of or if leave is granted, the resolution has been voted upon.
(10) The Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, as .The case may be, shall stand removed from his office if the resolution is passed by a majority of the total membership of the Assembly."
7. Though it is not defined as to what is an internal proceeding, yet it is clear that anything and everything done within the House can be termed as "an internal affair". Now, a question arises, as to whether the proceedings upon the motion of no confidence also come within the purview of internal affairs of the Parliament? In its widest sense, the motion means any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House to do something, order something to be done or express an opinion with regard to same matter. In rule 11 supra, it is clearly said that if any member intends to move a resolution of no confidence against the Speaker, he/she has to get leave. Then, the resolution is placed before the House, the members are called to debate on it and finally the question is resolved by ballot. When a question on the resolution is agreed by the majority of the members, it becomes an order of the House. Thus, undoubtedly such proceedings come within the purview of ID an internal affair of the Parliament.
8. The proceedings of a Parliament are protected by Article 69 of the Constitution, which is reproduced herein-below: "69. (1) The validity of any proceedings in [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure of the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)], shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers, Pursuant to the above provision, the Parliament, its members and other participants in the parliamentary process, do enjoy the E immunity as far as the internal affairs of the Parliament are concerned. According to the aforesaid Article of the Constitution, the proceedings of the Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of a procedural irregularity or minor technicalities. The privileges contemplated by the Constitution are to be liberally interpreted; therefore, the courts always upheld and refused to question the House's control of its own internal proceedings to ensure a smooth functioning of the Parliament. In this way, a principle of the freedom of the Parliament as provided by the Constitution is maintained, which helps strengthening the democracy.
9. Now a question arises as to whether the jurisdiction of a Court has completely been ousted in respect of the proceedings of the Parliament? It is true that the Parliament is the only judge on its internal affairs, but that is only, when the privileges breached, has been declared by law to be the parliamentary privileges. However, in case of a contravention of the Constitution, breach of fundamental rights, violation of any law, committing a criminal act by a member, endeavor to trample the constitutional prohibitions, involves interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution or any statute, while participating in the internal affairs of the Parliament, the Conn can intervene.
Since the petitioner through the instant petition, has failed to point out any ground, enabling us to interfere in the internal proceedings of the Provincial Assembly, therefore, it is not for us to indulge into a rough and tumble arena of politics.
10. It is the obligation of every member to follow the rules framed by the Parliament to run its internal affairs, and the Speaker or the Presiding Officer, as the case may be, being the custodian of the Assembly, has to ensure its implementation. The petitioner pointed out that at the time of the proceedings of the no confidence motion, rule 11 has not been followed. According to him, certain members of the Assembly, after casting their votes, allegedly exhibited the ballot papers to the officials of the Assembly, hence, failed to maintain the secrecy of the vote, which according to the learned counsel,- vitiates the entire proceedings of the no confidence motion. The learned counsel did not show the consequence of violation of any rule. Sub-rule (8) of rule 11 of the Balochistan Provincial Assembly Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business 1974 is relevant, which is directory in nature as on its violation, no consequence upon the voting process has been suggested, consequently its non-adherence will not vitiate the entire proceedings. The allegation of exhibiting of the ballot papers has been leveled against two to five members, If it is believed to be true, even then it was a personal act of an individual, therefore, under such circumstances, the vote of the individual could have been cancelled. It is a fact that 47 members cast their votes in favour of the resolution. If five votes are deducted from these votes, even then, the majority votes, i,e, 42 votes, still remains in favour of the resolution. In such view of the matter, the alleged violation of the rule by some of the members has no bearing upon the net result of the proceedings; therefore, no interference is warranted. Hence, on such ground, the whole proceedings cannot be termed as illegal.
11. It is a fact that under Article 69 of the Constitution, a member enjoys immunity from an external review, while participating in the proceeding, but it does not grant a license to a member to be free of all restrains, in how one conducts oneself. The Constitution in no way prevents the legislature to .Proceed against its own members for the breach of the privilege or any rule, hence, the jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the. House over its members, After going through the photographs annexed with the petition, it is painfully observed that a few members exhibited their ballot papers openly to the officials by violating sanctity of the secret ballot. The alleged act of the members is violation of the prescribed rules. An infringement of these general rules or a particular conduct, which is injurious to the dignity of the House, is liable to be dealt with accordingly by the House. We therefore expect that the Speaker being the custodian of the House may initiate strict action against those, who violated the rules and thereby disgraced the Assembly.
12. Thus, in view of what has been stated and 'discussed herein above, the petition is accordingly dismissed. These are the reasons of our short order dated 31st December, 2012.