CM Punjab Runoff elections 22 July

[Norwegian]

It's same in both cases

At the time of PTI 158 PTI MPAs decided to vote for Pervez Ilahi while 25 voted against it.
Then those 158 members asked their party head Imran khan to file a reference in ECP for 25 member de seating which Imran khan did.

That's exactly what article 63-A says.
Parliamentary party majority will decide what to do inside assembly then if anyone disobey parliamentary party will ask party head to de seat him.

Here PMLQ parliamentary party decided to vote for Pervez ihali which is completely fine.


Supreme didn't in this case
This patwari is lying

Exactly. So this verdict by Patwari Haramkhor lota speaker Dost Mazari is totally unconstitutional

Bola tha PTI walo ko itna khush mat ho when PTI won by elections.

Nazar laga di BC.

It's temporary win by neutrals mafia

 

[Olympus81]

I am sure some PTI members started making memes of patch up with establishment.

Dekh liya?

 

[Acetic Acid]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1550532143243087873

 

[Steppe Wolff]

View attachment 864217
still its PP and Army

Gaand ka ilaaj hay Gandu ka nai. People need to come out to end the stranglehold of these scums.

 

[SaadH]

This Ugly MF is the biggest Scum of Pakistan, as long as this MF is alive we will keep getting destroyed like this.

Guess who is pulling his strings, the ever handsome stud Bajwa...

 

[Wood]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1550057843788857347

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

This entire clusterFcuk is for just One god damn appointment. Even Today was all about delaying the elections just a little bit.

 

[Mirzali Khan]

This entire clusterFcuk is for just One god damn appointment.

It just proves that whatever Akbar Bugti Achakzai Bacha Khan were saying all actually ended up being correct

How can a country just violate peoples mandate like that

Bengalis realized pretty quick about the reality of Pakistan

 

[Enigma SIG]

He can't because Courts ruled in favor of PTI last time and the decision of THAT case is what is being cited by PMLN+PPP.

 

[Tomcats]

But Patwari Haramkhor lota speaker Dost Mazari didn't know that.


SC cannot overrule the constitution. Constitution says parliamentary leader

They interpret the constitution and they said party head, but okay let's say they reverse their decision, this would mean that all those 20 seats that were disqualified of PTI would have been illegal and have to be reinstated. Then the headache increases, the previous decision would in effect be annulled.
Then it will beg the question as to why their earlier decision in favor of PTI was made in the first place?

The people who are drawing comparisons between the PTI defection reference and this one seriously need to get their brains checked.

1- This time, the parliamentary party is all in unison, and the parliamentary head did not give any direction contrary to the vote. With PTI, the parliamentary PTI did give an opposite direction to the party.

2- The party head has no authority to give a direction to the parliamentary party. He can only send a reference to disqualify him.

3- The SC judgement is also very clear, it mentions the parliamentary party, not political party with regards to the judgement.

If the SC gets involved they will likely uphold their previous (bad) decision and the votes will be cancelled. The SC decision says Parliamentary head meanwhile constitution says parliamentary leader. But anyways you've made me doubt myself so i'll view the SC decision again if i can find it.

 

[Acetic Acid]

@Norwegian ye patwari ko dikha do
Boht SC ka rola daal rha tha

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Erie Silence before Storm , I sense very bad feeling
Elderly folks have left or sleep very disappointed

I feel angry / shocked

Seeing Pakistan crumble before my eyes

How can this happen , The rigging is destructive

 

[Acetic Acid]

They interpret the constitution and they said party head, but okay let's say they reverse their decision, this would mean that all those 20 seats that were disqualified of PTI would have been illegal and have to be reinstated. Then the headache increases, the previous decision would in effect be annulled.
Then it will beg the question as to why their earlier decision in favor of PTI was made in the first place?

If the SC gets involved they will likely uphold their previous (bad) decision and the votes will be cancelled. The SC decision says Parliamentary head meanwhile constitution says parliamentary leader. But anyways you've made me doubt myself so i'll view the SC decision again if i can find it.

Where does supreme court said party head?
Show me

 

[Waterboy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1550519581688868870

 

[Jango]

The SC decision says Parliamentary head meanwhile constitution says parliamentary leader.

No, it does not say that. I don't know where you are reading the judgement from (I hope not Shahzeb Khanzada), but that is wrong.

Here is the relevant part of the judgement:

Turning to the second question and keeping in mind the answer to the first, it is our view that the vote of any member (including a deemed member) of a Parliamentary Party in a House that is cast contrary to any direction issued by the latter in terms of para (b) of clause (1) of Article 63A cannot be counted and must be disregarded,

https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/refernece_1_2022.pdf