1

2nd National TILS Lahore Law Moot Court

Competition 2023

Team Code 9.0

Respondent
 2

Table of Contents

1. List of Abbreviations

2. List of Authorities

3. Statement of relevant facts

4. Statement of jurisdiction

5. Questions/issues presented

6. Summary of Arguments

7. Advanced Arguments

8. Prayer/Relief
 3

List of Abbreviations
FIR: First information report

PAC: Public Accounts Committee

PPC: Pakistan Penal Code 1860

CrPC: Criminal Procedure Code1898

 4

List of Authorities
• Constitution of Pakistan 1973
• Rules of Procedure and Course of Business Act 2007
• Pakistan Penal Code 1860
• Criminal Procedure Code 1898
• Constitution of India 1950
• Indian Penal Code 1860

Statement of Jurisdiction
Case is held in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) and 184(1) of the Constitution of
Pakistan and there is no issue of Jurisdiction in this case.
 5

Statement of relevant facts

1) Republic of Eradoniya is located in South Asia, it is a diverse and Vibrant Country.

Politically, Eradoniya follows a federal parliamentary System. President is the
ceremonial head of the state and the Prime Minister is the Head of the Government.
Parliament Consists of the National Assembly and Senate. Constitution of Eradoniya is
described as one of the most progressive Constitutions. Its constitution Guarantees
several fundamental rights, broadly corresponding to those recognized in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Constitutional, Legal and policy framework are in Pari
materia to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Capital City, Rawalabad, houses the
Parliament and Supreme Court.

2) Yousafzai is a veteran Legislator who has the distinction of being elected consecutively
3 times in the Parliament of Eradoniya. He is currently the Leader of Opposition in the
Lower house of Parliament. Mr. Yousafzai won the elections and became prime minister
on 1st January 2015 for a term of 5 years, which ended in 2020. Yousafzai lost elections
in 2020, the main reason being financial and administrative mismanagement during the
Pandemic which led to the emergencies across the country and induced irreparable loss
to the economy of the Country.

3) Coalition government of Mr. Alam was formed and he became Prime Minister in 2020.
Newly formed Government decided to investigate the expenses claimed by Mr.
Yousafzai as Prime Minister with respect to reimbursement worth 10 Million Eradoniyan
Dollars claimed on account of expenses incurred on family members by way of traveling,
and domestic expenditures. Yousafzai issues a statement on Twitter, “I had not asked for
benefit nor have I been involved in deciding on it… this has been the case for previous
Prime Ministers aswell…system of payment of members of Parliaments allowances and
expenses was created by the joint resolution of both houses of Parliament and is overseen
by the Public Accounts Committee”.
 6

4) Spokesperson of Mr. Yousafzai’s Party stated, in a press conference, “Mr. Yousafzai has
not misused public money nor is responsible he involved in the wrongful gain and willful
loss to the exchequer…he(Yousafzai) has discharged his responsibilities… in tune with
constitutional ethos and law of the land… Our Party seeks an explanation from the
present government… when Yousafzai was Prime Minister, Mr. Alam was head of the
Public Accounts Committee… Committee approved all bills, expenditure and
appropriation related issues of the Parliament of the Year 2019… Then why the
Controversy now?”

5) Speaker referred the matter to the privilege committee to investigate any irregularity and
illegality in the claims or not. The matter was referred to the current Committee of Public
Accounts which is headed by Mr. Yousafzai. Mr. Yousafzai referred the entire issue to a
sub-committee composed of 5 distinguished Members of the Lower house. He requested
the Sub-committee to submit their findings directly to the Speaker, which they did and
upon their recommendation, the Speaker registered an FIR against Mr. Yousafzai. Mr.
Yousafzai Challeged the decision before the Rawalabad High Court, where he aimed to
FIR and claim immunity from suit, but this Writ Petition was dismissed on the grounds
of non-maintainability. Mr. Yousafzai was taken into custody by Law Enforcement
Agencies. Yousafzai challenged this decision before the Supreme Court of Eradoniya.

6) Mr Azlan is another member of Parliament in the lower house who belonged to the same
political party as Mr. Yousafzai. He protested the decision of the Speaker of registering
an FIR against Yousafzai, by saying that it was a clear violation of the privilege of the
Parliament. He gave a speech titled “Give Me Freedom”. Following the speech, two First
time Parliamentarians of the lower house took out spray paint and scribbled ‘Give Me
Freedom’ in the Parliament building. Mr. Azlan’s speech got live telecasted and there
were several graffiti in the name and style of “Give Me Freedom” that came up at various
places in the Capital City and by the next morning, on all important public places and
walls of government buildings in the Capital City had written on them “Give Me
Freedom”. Protests took place in Rawalabad and streets echoed with chants demanding
the restoration of free speech and the prevention of institutional autonomy.
 7

7) Speaker got complaints from various Parliamentarians to take actions against Mr. Azlan,
Speaker got the incident examined by the Ethics Committee and on it’s recommendation,
the Speaker suspended Mr. Azlan for 6 weeks to which he replied that he did not deface
any property nor carried out any illegal activities as defined under any law, rather he had
all the right to make the speech on the floor of the house. His speech got live telecasted
by the TV Channels of the lower house which was run and managed by the speaker and
it could have been censored if it was inflammatory in nature. He said that consequential
reaction by the ordinary public on the streets of the Capital City shows public anger
against squeezing freedoms. Mr. Azlan along with the two parliamentarians were charged
under Section 124A of the Penal Code of Eradoniya 1860 on charges of sedition. Mr
Azlan challenged the FIR through a direct petition before the supreme court of Eradoniya
and also claimed legislative privilege for his speech “give me freedom”. NGO named
Civil Rights Society(CRS) filed a direct petition before the supreme court of Eradoniya
challenging the constitutionality of sedition laws under Section 124A of the Penal Code
of Eradoniya 1860.
 8

Questions/Issue presented

1. Whether the Power of the legislature to punish the members of Parliament for contempt
including the breach of its privilege is essentially a Judicial Function or not?

2. Whether the Actions of the Speaker of the Lower House against Mr. Yousafzai and Mr.
Azlan respectively is violative of constitutional rights?

3. Whether the Law of Sedition under Section 124A of the Penal Code of Eradoniya, 1860 is
Ultra Vires of the Constitution or not? And whether the registration of FIRs against the
Members of the Parliament under this law is legal or not.
 9

Summary of arguments
Issue 1

Petitions aims to prove that power of the legislature to punish of Member of Parliament for
contempt including the breach of its privilege is essentially a judicial function. To prove evaluate
this, we must look at how the

1) Subcommittee actions made the whole procedure void

• Constitution of Pakistan Article 67
• ROPCB ACT 2007 (s 224)
2) Violation of procedure by the speaker
• Sub-committee rule no. 178, 179
• Principle of policy Article 93 (d)
• Muhammad Azlan Sididiqui V Fedration of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 774
• Rule 259
• Rule 237
• Atta-ur-Rehman v Sardar Umar Farooq PLD 2008 SC 663
• Yousafzai Ali v Muhammad Aslan Zia PLD 1958 SC 104 ref
3) Ultra vires by speaker of lower House
• State of Punjab v Satya Pal AIR SC 903 ref
• Home secretary v Rehman [2003] / AC 153
• Wukula Barai Tahafaz Datto v Federation of Pakistan 2014 SCMR 111
4) Safety net provided under article 66,69
• Article 66 and 69
• Muhammad Azlan Siddique v Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 774
5) Disqualification as per constitution, speaker has no power to order disqualification and
FIR
• Article 63 (2)(3)
 10

Issue 2

1. Rule of Law: FIR is not a verdict.

• Abdul Qayyum vs State
• Wajid Khan vs State
• Muhammad Aslam vs Sessions Judge
• Nawab Siraj Ali vs State
• Muhammad Paryal vs State

Issue 3

1. Article 19
2. Section 124A PPC
• Ram Nandai vs State
• Sheikh Wajihuddin vs State
• Schenck vs United States
• Pakistan Broadcasters association vs PEMRA
• Tafazzal Hussain vs Government of East Pakistan
 11

Detailed Arguments
Issue no. 1:

1. Court and the proceedings of the Lower House

As provided in both the Constitution Article 691 and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business 2007 Rule 2802, the Lower House and all its representatives including the Speaker have
a blanket immunity from the intervention of Courts into their matters.

Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)

69. (1) The validity of any proceedings in 1 [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)]

shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of
procedure.

(2) No officer or member of 1 [Majlis-e-Shoora Parliament)] in whom

powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure
or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in 1 [Majlise-Shoora
(Parliament)], shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect
of the exercise by him of those powers.

(3) In this Article, 1 [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] has the same meaning

as in Article 66.

1
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
2
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business 2007
 12

280. Validity of proceedings. – (1) The validity of the proceedings in the

Assembly shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity
of procedure.

(2) The Assembly shall power to act notwithstanding any vacancy in the
membership thereof and no proceedings in the Assembly shall be invalid
by reason only that a person who was disqualified for being or continuing
as a member, or a person who was otherwise not entitled to do so, was
present at or voted or otherwise took part in it.

In the case of Nazir A.M Joint Venture through Chief Executive v The National Highway
Authority through Chairman and 4 others3 , Lahore High Court concluded regarding the
decision on the ambit of the Speaker’s actions and the scope of immunity it has under Article 69
of the Constitution in the following words:

“The judgment finds that the proceedings of a formally constituted

committee of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) falls within the ambit of
internal proceedings and consequently is immune from challenge in courts
in the light of the bar contained in Article 69 of the Constitution.
Consequently the proceedings of PAC are internal proceedings of
Parliament and immune from being inquired into by this Court. Therefore
in view of the clear stipulation provided in Article 69 of the Constitution,
as interpreted by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan a decision taken
by PAC is not subject to writ jurisdiction.”

3
Nazir A.M Joint Venture through Chief Executive v The National Highway Authority through Chairman and 4
others P L D 2020 Lahore 801
 13

2. Requirement of Speaker’s consent

As per Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business 2007 Rule 1094, a trump card has been
awarded to the Speaker where his discretion may take precedence over any other rules as to
deciding whether or not a question may be raised or a motion can be started in the House. Rule
109 provides:

109. Speaker’s consent. – Subject to the provisions of these rules, a motion for
the adjournment of the business of the House for the purpose of discussion
on a definite matter of an urgent public importance may be made with the
consent of the Speaker.

Regarding this Riaz Hanif Rahi v Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Minister of Law
and Justice5 CJ Athar Minallah provides the manner in which the literal meaning of this provision
should be construed:

”Moreover, since the expression 'may' has been used therein, therefore, the
power vested in the Speaker is of a discretionary nature.”

3. Power vested with the Speaker

Under the Rules of Procedure and conduct of business 2007, the Speaker has been provided with
some exceptional powers that he may exercise as he deems fit. He is under no obligation to comply
with the wishes of the House if he does not wish to. Furthermore even if a Member or a Minister
decides to present a motion before the Assembly it is purely under the discretion of the Speaker
whether he may or may not entertain it and allow the House to debate upon the matter. Rule 1616
provides:

4
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business 2007
5
Riaz Hanif Rahi v Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Minister of Law and Justice PLD 2019 Islamabad 230
6
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business 2007
 14

161. Speaker to decide admissibility of resolution.- The Speaker shall decide

whether a resolution or a part thereof is or is not admissible under these
rules and may disallow any resolution or a part thereof when in his
opinion it is an abuse of the right of moving a resolution or is calculated
to obstruct or prejudicially affect the procedure of the Assembly or is in
contravention of any of these rules.

Furthermore, Rules also provide the priority that the recommendations of a Committee report shall
have as well as the power that the Speaker can practice after taking its contents into account. Rule
102(3)7 provides:

102. Priority for consideration of report of Committee. (3) The Speaker shall
have the powers to implement the decision of the Assembly, and any matter
requiring action against Government functionary shall be referred to the
concerned Division or Ministry to take action. The compliance report
shall be submitted to the Assembly within the specified period.

As per stated in the rules, it seems to be a complete prerogative of the Speaker whether
to allow the House to debate on a motion as well as what action to take for the
implementation of any recommendations presented in the Committee reports, and he does
not need to procure everyone’s opinion on the discharge of any actions per the
recommendations.

4. Derogatory conduct and validity of Speaker’s actions

The rules lay out a clear manner in which the Members are to behave in the Lower House both
while exercising their right to Freedom of Speech provided under Article 198 or Freedom of

7
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business 2007
8
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
 15

Assembly and Association under Article 169 and 1710 respectively. It is under these Rules of
conduct we find a list of all the actions that the Members must avoid in order to act accordingly
with the law. Regarding the resolution for a motion to be passed its contents must be examined
carefully under Rule 160(3)11 as to what it must not contain in order to be a valid motion.

160.- Contents of the Resolution (3) It shall not,-

(a) contain arguments, inferences, ironical expressions or defamatory

statements;

Speaker acted within the rules provided and did not proceed to act according to his own wishes
whereby he referred the matters to the standing Committees in both the scenarios, only taking
action as per the suggestions of the Committees members. Rule 10012 lays out:

100. Question of privilege to be considered by the Assembly or Committee. If

the Speaker holds the motion to be in order, the Assembly may consider
and decide a question of privilege or may, on a motion either by the
member who raised the question or by any other member, refer it for
report to the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Privileges.

Furthermore, even if the Speaker did decide that the matter was undermining to the integrity of the
House, he has been providing with the explicit power to act in order to curb the possible threat to
the Sovereignty of the House. The following rules13 would be applicable:

19. Speaker to preserve order and enforce decisions.- (1) The Speaker shall
preserve order and shall have all powers necessary for the purpose of
enforcing his decision.

(2) For the purpose of enforcing the orders of the Speaker there shall be a
Sergeant-at-Arms.

9
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
10
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
11
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business 2007
12
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business 2007
13
Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business 2007
 16

20. Withdrawal of member.- The Speaker may direct any member whose
conduct is, in his opinion, grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately
from the Assembly and any member so ordered to

Since even the courts have established that they cannot intervene into the matters of the Lower
House as per the Constitution Article 6914 and the entirety of the whole fiasco fall well within the
domain of the ‘internal proceedings’ of the house which is a non-justiciable matter for the courts
as provided in the case of Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan15 and Bradlaugh v.
Gossett16.

“Important feature that emerges from the fundamental constituents of

proceedings in Parliament, namely, free speech and vote, is that these all
relate to the internal functioning of Parliament---Resultantly, the Courts,
whilst determining the ambit of and the immunity attached to proceedings
in Parliament, refer to these proceedings as the 'internal proceedings' of
Parliament.”

Furthermore, it can be seen through precedents that the courts are not likely to interfere into the
matters of the Lower House; this does not mean that House must allow the turmoil within itself to
ensue. The House must take necessary steps in order to ensure that not member to the Parliament
is under the impression that they can get away with whatever they wish. The courts declared in the
case of Jurists Foundation v. Federal Government 17.

”Courts will ordinarily exercise restraint and not enter into the domains of
the Legislature and the Executive, but they will intervene when either of
these branches overstep their constitutionally prescribed limits.”

14
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
15
Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 98
16
Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271 ref
17
Jurists Foundation v. Federal Government PLD 2020 SC 1 ref
 17

5. 184(3) and Jurisdiction Issue

Article 184(3)18 provides:

Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

184. (3) Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 199, Supreme Court
shall, if it considers that a question of public importance with reference to
the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1
of Part II is involved, have the power to make an order of the nature
mentioned in the said Article.

Under this Article Courts only have the power to intervene in matters if these concern the
enforcement of any Fundamental Rights. However, the statutory wording of the Constitution
is clear on how the exercise of the rights provided must be in accordance with the law. In
Nawabzadah Nasrullah Khan v Government of West Pakistan 19, the Lahore High Court
held that freedom of speech and press is not absolute at all times and all circumstances, and it
does not mean one can talk or distribute when, where and how one chooses. Thus, the courts
cannot intervene if the act by the person seeking the protection under the infringement of
fundamental rights is the same entity that initially misused their right to not act ‘save in
accordance with the law’.

The question arises as to who decides on what restraints must be put on the rights to speech
and press in the country and guidance regarding this is provided in the case of Ghulam
Sarwar Awan v Government of Sindh20 that the question of ‘prior restraint’, being
reasonable or not, depends upon the restriction which must have been imposed by a positive
law made by a competent law-making authority.

18
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
19
Nawabzadah Nasrullah Khan v Government of West Pakistan
20
Ghulam Sarwar Awan v Government of Sindh
 18

Issue 2:

Whether the Actions of the Speaker of the Lower house against Mr. Azlan and Mr. Yousafzai
respectively is violative of constitutional rights?

Regardless of the fact that there were many defects in the actions of the Speaker concerning
procedures adopted in the Lower house, it must not be ignored that, in the end, the Speaker only
registered an FIR against each of the two Members, which is itself not violative of Constitutional
Rights, but rather is a step in starting a proceeding with respect to their institutions. Consequently,
it is up to the institutions whether they have the right to qualify the rights of said individuals save
in accordance with the law or whether the investigations prove otherwise.

Case Laws: This is addressed in many case-laws of Pakistan concerning S.154 CrPC21

• Abdul Qayyum vs State22:

First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence. Main objective of
the FIR is to set the law in motion.
• Wajid Khan vs State23:
FIR under S.154 can be registered by an informant about any occurrence and
necessarily he may not be an aggrieved person
• Muhammad Aslam vs Sessions Judge Muzaffargarh 24:
In absence of availability of any private person to be a complainant, state
functionaries themselves can report a crime for bringing to book… in doing so,
individual is not under any legal obligation to show that personally he is
aggrieved of an act complained off.
• Nawab Siraj Ali vs State25:
Purpose of the FIR is to set criminal law in motion and to obtain first hand
spontaneous information of occurrence in order to exclude possibility of

21 Section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code

22 Abdul Qayyum vs State 2020 YLR 1649 SC Azad Kashmir
23 Wajid Khan vs State 2020 PCrLJ 454 Peshawar High Court
24 Muhammad Aslam vs Sessions Judge Muzaffargarh 2020 PCrLJ 742 Lahore High Court
25 Nawab Siraj Ali vs State 2020 PCrLJN 94 Karachi High Court Sindh
 19

fabrication of story or consultation or deliberation to devise or contrive anything

to the advantage. FIR was not a substantive piece of evidence.
• Muhammad Paryal vs State26:
Basic purpose of FIR was not meant to decide Guilt or innocence but to activate
the law enforcing agencies to immediately move for collection/preservation of
evidence.

These Cases give off the same principle, that the FIR is itself not sufficient to be counted in as a
document of evidence or verdict, but rather is part of the formalities to set the proceedings into
motion.

Issue no. 3

Whether the law of Sedition under section 124A 27 of The Penal Code of Eradoniya, 1860 is ultra
vires of the constitution or not? And whether the registration of FIRs against the Members of
Parliament under this law is legal or not?

6. Reasonable restrictions under Article 19

Article 1928 did provide reasonable restrictions within the constitution, which justifies the legal
basis for the law of seditions.

Article 19: Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and
expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any
reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam
or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality,

26 Muhammad Paryal vs State 2019 YLR 2316 Karachi High Court Sindh
27
Pakistan Penal Code 1860
28
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
 20

or in relation to contempt of Court, commission off or incitement to an

offence

Article 1929 provides that, any attempt to disintegrate Pakistan, fuel any fissiparous tendencies or
preach cession by any means of expression is liable to be censored. What is prohibited under S.124-
A30 is not the criticism of the government but its subversion by violent means.
Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar31 provides:
"Now 'public order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies that
state of tranquillity which prevails among the members of a political
society as a result of the internal regulations enforced by the Government
which they have established. The meaning given to the phrase in the
Murray's Dictionary, and which I adopt, is “absence of” insurrection,
riot, turbulence, unruliness or crimes of violence”.
Ram Nandai v State lays out:

“The effect of the provisions of Articles 13 32 and 19(1)(a) and (2)33 is that
all the laws in force on 25-1-1950, which were inconsistent with the
freedom of speech and expression are void, except those which imposed
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the freedom in the interests of
the security of the State, public order etc. Section 124-A34, punishes any
person who by words, spoken or written, brings or attempts to bring into
hatred or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the
Government established by law.”

The constitutionality of the Sedition act cannot be challenged. As the exceptions lies within the
constitution itself .it is nonetheless noteworthy that the state is responsible to ensure the right to
speech and is liable for dereliction of duty by its action as well as inactions.

29
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
30
Pakistan Penal Code 1860
31
Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC 955).
32
Constitution of India 1950
33
Constitution of India 1950
34
Indian Penal Code 1860
 21

7. Abuse of freedom of speech and liberty

The right of freedom of speech, or liberty cannot be used to help up government established by
law to hatred or contempt.
“Gravity of offence to be determined by the effect which the offending
statement is calculated to produce in the public mind, which in turn results
in public disorder35.”
Making public speech, which invokes public order
“Public speech not confined to mere recapitulation of political events but
inflaming opinion against lawful constituted Government; speech not
confined to fair criticism of government but intended to bring Government
into hatred and contempt, prima facie, offence under this section made 36.”

As provided in Sheikh Wajihuddin v. The State37.

“The constitutional protection of free speech does not extend to
expressions disturbing or likely to disturb public order. e.g hate speech
blasphemy, speeches imperiling public order.”
It is not the language but words or acts calculated to do alone is material38.

8. Absolute freedom is an absolute myth

Test of reasonability asks whether the decisions made were legitimate and designed to remedy a
certain issue under the circumstances at the time, Courts using this standard look at both the
ultimate decision, and the process by which a party went about making that decision.

35
PLD 1967 SC 78
36
PLD 1967 SC 78
37
Sheikh Wajihuddin v. The State (AIR 1963 All. 335)
38
PLD 1973 lah 747
 22

It is noteworthy that the state is responsible to ensure the right to free speech and is liable for the
dereliction of duty by its action as well as inaction. Courts in Pakistan in various case laws have
been epitome to derelict the duty of inaction.

As discussed in the case Schenck v. United States39.

“For instance, the “clear and present danger” test has been held to be a
reasonable restriction by the American courts. In order to define the
standard of “reasonableness”, the court has prescribed a catalogue of
factors to be taken into account, including the circumstances and causes
of putting restrictions, the manner of their imposition, the extent and
duration of the restriction, the nature of the right violated, the extent of
malice to be prevented or remedied, and the disproportion of the
restriction.”
It is in this context this test for reasonableness is used in Pakistan as provided in the case of
Pakistan Broadcasters Association v. PEMRA40.

9. Safety of public order under public law

Public order is held to be valid by various courts, under the various safety public law for the
maintenance of public order provided in the following cases from persuasive jurisdictions.

1) Tafazzal Hussain v. Govt. of East Pakistan41

2) Emperor v. Sibnath42

It jeopardizes public order and is thus not entitled to the constitutional protection under Article
1943.

39
Schenck v. United States (249 U.S 47)
40
Pakistan Broadcasters Association v. PEMRA (2016 PLD 692 SC)
41
Tafazzal Hussain v. Govt. of East Pakistan (PLD 1965 Dacca 68)
42
Emperor v. Sibnath (AIR 1943 FC 1)
43
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
 23

Prayer / Relief

1. Declare that the power of the legislature to punish the Members of the Parliament for
contempt including the breach of its privilege is not a judicial function.

2. Declare that the actions of the Speaker against Mr. Azlan and Mr. Yousafzai are not
violative of Constitutional rights.

3. Declare that the laws of Sedition are not ultra vires of the Constitution and hence
registration of FIR under this law is legal.