The latest move of Parliament to reject the top court to conduct Punjab elections has prompted a debate: will the cabinet and PM be sent packing by next week? Many experts believe it would now be contempt of Parliament Vs contempt of court.

To discuss this and much more, Asma Shirazi had senior legal expert Irfan Qadir and PTI leader Shafqat Mahmood on her show Faisla Aap Ka on Thursday.

“This is the voice of Parliament. This protest is better than demonstrations on the streets,” Qadir said while speaking on the resolution passed by the National Assembly.

The august house rejected the minority decision of the three-member bench and bound the prime minister and the cabinet not to implement the decision, which they deemed “unconstitutional and unlawful”.

The top court ruled on Tuesday illegal the top electoral authority’s decision to delay the Punjab polls where former prime minister Imran Khan’s party-ruled government was dissolved earlier this year. It also ordered the government to release funds worth Rs21 billion to the Election Commission of Pakistan for voting and told it to update the court by April 11. Many experts were wondering whether the prime minister would be committing contempt of court or not by not following their orders.

Qadir, who represented the ECP in the Punjab delay case, was of the view that the bench violated the Constitution that was formed by Parliament. The bench violated those Supreme Court judges, who said that the decision on the election date was decided by 4-3, he claimed.

The bench had diminished after two judges recused themselves from hearing the case, prompting the government to press the top court for a full court. But such a demand from the attorney general for Pakistan was rejected during the hearing.

The senior lawyer went on to add that the president and governors cannot give date for elections—a point he had raised in the apex court. “They can only give dates when they had dissolved the assemblies at their own discretion. When the president dissolves an assembly, he does is under Article 58-2(b) of the Constitution,” he said, adding that such a law now was not part of the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court judges clearly did not understand the Constitution. The law was also not understood and by doing all the violations, they made a decision which is null and void. They have no legal status and the Supreme Court has its own decisions that such decisions should be ignored.”

He lamented that the judges gave less time to the lawyers to speak during the three days of the hearing. He claimed that many senior lawyers were not allowed to present their arguments. “They think we have no status. Freedom of speech has no status,” Qadir said and alleged that political parties do not have basic rights.

“Only one political party has basic rights and we will see them only,” he said in a veiling reference to the PTI, who won the case for early elections in Punjab.

The senior lawyer went on to say that he did not want to say such things, however, if it was not discussed then the judiciary would remain a “victim of overreach” and an individual alone would “discriminate” the whole institution.

When asked if the premier and the whole cabinet would be standing in the court on April 10, he said it was out of the question. He quoted Article 248 (Protection to President, Governor, Minister, etc) of the Constitution to support his statement.

“The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions,” states Article 248 (1).

Qadir, who was AGP during the PPP tenure, said that a wrong decision was given against former PM Yousaf Raza Gillani that neither he nor his client accepted.

On a query, he said: “The prime minister will not be sent packing.”

When pressed on who would be removed if elections were not held, the senior lawyer said that it would be better if the chief justice resigns because of the apparent misconduct done by him. “If he [CJP] did not resign then unfortunately, I think the CJP will be sent packing.”

He was of the view that Article 184 (3) of the Constitution strengthened the Constitution, adding that it would end the dictatorship of one man in the Supreme Court.

PTI’s Mahmood said that the resolution against the decision of the SC would further increase the opposition. The resolution passed today (Thursday) has no legal status, he added.

“It is written in the constitution to obey the decision of the Supreme Court,” Mahmood said.

It would be very sad if a situation like 1997 happens, the PTI leader said while reminding the time when supporters of PML-N stormed the SC after Nawaz Sharif appeared before the court. They forced the then chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah to remove the finding of contempt against Sharif.

Mahmood said that the party was not concerned with a full court or a bench. Article 224 (Time of election and by-election) of the Constitution was very clear, he said and added that no one can imagine going against the law.

“We can only give an opinion but the fact is that it is the duty of all the institutions to implement the decision of the Supreme Court. Our constitution allows for separate elections, three assemblies are going to complete the term. After that, if the process is derailed, the responsibility will be on those who want to create an atmosphere of conflict,” he said.