Being parliamentarian NS has immunity under article 66 therefore he can't be disqualified for his speech he made on the floor of the house, Makhdoom Ali Khan argues before SC. We don't claim immunity for PM but article 66 immunes the parliamentarians which we can't help, gormint (government) ministers tell public.
PM doesn't enjoy complete immunity under article 66, the court. There're numerous observations made by SC which quash defense counsel's arguments, hope you all remember.
So what is this article 66 all about?
66(1) --- Subject to the Constitution and to the rules of procedure of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)], there shall be freedom of speech in [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] and no member shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)], and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
This privilege article/law is centuries old, British parliamentarians introduced this immunity thingy to avoid prosecution in Royal Courts because kings were not fond of freedom of speech.We follow common laws in Pakistan, reason for this article's inclusion in constitution of Pakistan was to ensure freedom of speech for parliamentarians so that they speak their mind and heart without any fear of prosecution.
This is how it starts
"Subject to the Constitution and to the rules of procedure of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)". When there's
"subject" there is always conditions. Let me rephrase
"conditional to the constitution and to the rules of procedure of parliament". In a more precise way " depending upon the constitution and rules of procedure of parliament, there shall be freedom of speech. Articles in constitution do not cannot contradict each other, one article simply can't override another article, no article can be read in isolation, the basic rules. So when you say
subject to the constitution you say without overriding or contradicting other articles of the constitution. For example article 19 of the constitution, one of fundamental right articles, gives freedom of speech but also curbs one from incitement to an offence. Now a parliamentarian after increment of an offence on the floor of house can't claim immunity under article 66 of the constitution, if he's given immunity it will be violation of article 19.
Similarly for a person to be qualified for a parliamentarian he/she has to fulfill requirements prescribed in article 62 of the constitution, one of being truthful and trustworthy, 62(1)(f). A parliamentarian who tells blatant lies in parliamentary proceedings and when caught call it performance of official duty can't claim immunity in the name of privilege under article 66, and if he/she is given it would be violation of article 62. Needless to remind that PM's statements were voluntary, were related to his and his family's alleged corruption, had nothing to do with usual business of parliament.
Another legal explanation by Irfan Qair (Ex attorney general of Pakistan) -- article 66 is preceded by article 62 and 63, that said, article 66 is dependent on article 62 and 63 and not other way around. So when you read article 66 you read it in context of article 62 and 63.
Who on the face of earth takes pride in telling lies? A liar being parliamentarian has privilege under constitution, really? I know every politico/parliamentarian is a pathological liar but constitutional immunity to a certified liar, ziada nahi ho jai ga?
@Farah Sohail @PakSword @The Eagle @Verve @mr.robot @El_Swordsmen @Doordie @Mansoon @Imad.Khan
