PTI leader Imran Khan’s petition to the Supreme Court opposing the NAB law amendments was being heard by a bench of five members led by CJP Bandial.
In his arguments, government attorney Makhdoom Ali Khan stated that the court should exercise caution regarding clause 3 of Article 184. This clause can be used by the court in public matters. Standards will fall if the court rejects any request to invalidate legislation.
The CJP made the observation that the facts of this case are different. Imran Khan, the petitioner, is not just any ordinary citizen; he is the leader of the largest political party in the nation and has opposed the NAB amendments.
Justice Bandial made the observation that the nation is experiencing a serious political crisis and tension. The PTI first resigned from parliament before deciding to come back.
The chief justice also mentioned the general elections during the hearing, stating that the people’s mandate is the only way to solve all of the country’s problems.
He maintained that the House has been left incomplete, so any legislation passed by the current legislature is also controversial.
The CJP made the observation at one point that the court did not want to get involved in legislative procedure. The court received a request to oppose the NAB amendments but did not take any suo motu notice.
According to Justice Bandial, the issue in this case is not whether Imran Khan is right or wrong. Since he is no longer a member of the assembly, legislation like the NAB law are becoming contentious.
The CJP made the observation that Article 58-2B was a terrible law, referring to Muhammad Khan Junejo, who was the former prime minister. Only one prime minister in history was regarded as extremely honest; Article 58-2B was used to overthrow his government.