Against all odds, the PTI was the single most popular party in the elections. The decision preserves this.
Second, it denies an unrestricted ability to amend the Constitution to a government that doesn't have the numbers.
But could things get a little more complicated? Thoughts: There are four separate opinions in the case. Aside from one opinion of two judges, no one has held that the PTI's reserved seats could be distributed among the parties that form the ruling coalition, as the ECP had ordered. Not even CJP Isa. On this point, the verdict is 11-2.

Even as we shove close to two million Afghans into the Taliban's Afghanistan, so many Pakistanis seem to be congratulating themselves on the great favour they have done Afghans all these years.

Here’s a little story that may make you rethink that: Since he was about 16, Abdullah has collected the garbage in and around our street. About four years ago, as I was leaving for work, I saw a policeman pushing him, and two even younger boys, into the back of a police van.

They were being arrested for ‘vagrancy’.

Yesterday I shared a clip of an interview with BBC World, where I claimed that certain cases against Imran Khan were ‘weak’. So here’s a follow-up explainer on the current cases against Imran Khan, as well as others that may lurk in the future: First, the context was how the cases would affect his political career. Specifically, two cases: the anti-terrorism case and the S.144 case. But there are at least two other significant active and possible cases against him: the IHC contempt case and a case under 62(1)(f).

In May, those who criticised the SC decision on 63-A said unelected judges had added language to the law that elected parliamentarians had never included. It placed too much power in the hands of a single, spirited Speaker or Deputy Speaker.
It took all of two months to play out: Those who said Article 69 barred courts from inquiring into violations of the Constitution by a Speaker or Deputy Speaker now agree that the Supreme Court should be approached for what seems to be a violation of the Constitution by the Deputy Speaker.

In simple terms:

The Deputy Speaker refused to count PMLQ's votes because Chaudhry Shujaat wrote a letter directing members of the party to vote for Hamza Shehbaz, not Parvez Elahi. Because the votes were against Ch. Shujaat's directions, the Dep. Speaker didn't count them: This was possible because the SC, in May, held that votes against the directions of a Parliamentary Party couldn't be counted - a decision criticized by many at the time. But it is now the law. That particular SC decision benefitted the PTI and led to today's elections.

PMLQ's votes were to align with directions issued by the "parliamentary party", not the party head. Ch. Shujaat is not the parliamentary party.
The 'head' of the party becomes relevant re: disqualification. That too where the vote was against the parliamentary party's direction. When the 63-A case was before the SC, many argued that 'dissenting' votes ought to be counted (with consequences to follow). The SC said no. Hence today's result.

Nonetheless, the SC wrote of votes contrary to the directions of the 'parliamentary party', not the party head.

As we await the SC's interpretation on disqualification for defection under 63A, a few points on what the case is and is not about:

(Perhaps better to consider before the actual opinion of the court as, afterwards, things often turn into a meaningless shouting match.) The case is not about whether horse-trading/floor-crossing ought to be allowed. Article 63A, itself, is quite clear: a parliamentarian ought to be disqualified if such acts are established. In certain circumstances, they can also lead to consequences under the Elections Act.

This government practically volunteered to take charge of this economy.

But as the gratuitous fuel subsidy continues and the dollar crosses 190, the government remains unwilling to take unpopular decisions.

Well then just push for elections and spare everyone the politics. Fine, you didn’t want the PTI to complete its term and chose the VoNC route. Sure, there’s no legal obligation to call an election. But what now?

Do we just remain waiting nervously in the lobby until the next elections, as the light flicker and the power is eventually cut?

A lot is being said about the constitutionality (or lack, thereof) of the removal of the Governor of Punjab @OmerCheemaPTI through this notification.
Rhetoric aside, it's a bit more complicated than many on either side are making it out to be: For context, back in mid-April, the PM recommended a new Governor, Punjab. The President rejected the PM's summary after 15 days. The PM stood by it. The President continued to push back. Finally, the Cabinet Division issued this notification last night, removing the Governor.

None of the fundamentals change. It is only the protagonists that have switched, not the script-writers.

May both sides recognise and learn from this. (Thread) Yes, the SC’s decision was in line with the law. But there’s little doubt that the establishment’s born-again ‘neutrality’ is not disconnected from the fact that the law aligned with its interests.

Many people arguing that if the SC was to direct restoration of Parliament and the revival of the vote of no-confidence, then it ought to have decided what happens to defectors and defecting votes before the VoNC.

This is a reasonable question, but misses something important: The matter of defection was brought before the SC as an opinion under Article 186. The President moved it; it wasn’t taken up suo motu.

And it was the government’s own position before the court that they were seeking an interpretation for ‘future cases’.

The SC order went all the way today - as the Constitution required. The assembly has been restored and the vote of no confidence will be held on Saturday.

Of course, people are still concerned about floor-crossing. And the order addresses this: If a member of a political party votes contrary to party lines, either in the VoNC or the election of the next PM, if applicable, proceedings will be initiated against them under Article 63A. The only proof required is the casting of the contrary vote, and they will be de-seated.

Mixed signals coming in from the SC. On the one hand, it has indicated that it believes the Speaker/Deputy Speaker’s ruling to be illegal.

On the other, terms like ‘public interest’ and ‘stability’ suggest that we may be veering close to Necessity.

But are the two at odds?🧵 If the SC decides to return proceedings to the original position, the VoNC proceeds. If it fails, Imran Khan stays PM. If it succeeds, the next PM can be elected immediately thereafter. In either case, we have a stable government.

The Supreme Court has announced that it believes the Deputy Speaker’s ruling to be clearly unlawful. Even the AG did not defend it.

While a formal order is to follow in the next couple of hours, this is what we can expect: A basic constitutional principle is that any acts that are built on an illegal foundation are drained of legality. This would mean that if the Deputy Speaker’s ruling is set aside, Imran Kahn would be a PM against whom a Vote of a Confidence is now pending.

The sordid history of US intervention in foreign countries is no secret. From full-scale invasions to covert regime changes, the entitlement to interfere seems hard-wired to the point of caricature. Pakistan has every reason to take this correspondence seriously. (Thread) This is all the more so given our personal relationship with the US - with regimes for hire having turned our lands into airbases and our people into collateral damage statistics. If anything, “Absolutely Not” ought to have been said much earlier.

Since there is much confusion as to the precise legality of what happened today, here's a short explainer, based on a personal reading of the law: Instead of allowing the vote to proceed against the Prime Minister, the Deputy Speaker dismissed the resolution. After this, the President was able to dissolve the National Assembly on the PM's advice.

In response to some of the reactions on yesterday’s tweet, here are some thoughts on why a specific subset of overseas Pakistanis face the criticism that they do: Leaving the country doesn’t make you a bad person. Many if not most leave because their home couldn’t offer them the lives they felt they deserved - whether in terms of jobs or security as a minority. There should be no stigma in wanting a better life for yourself or your family.

“Only to learn a truth that we already knew deep in our bones…

Some bodies are just inherently human, worthy of collective grief, no questions asked.”

@khayalibiryani on Ukraine and selective grief. (1/4)

With the verdict today, I’m thinking about the first hearing in the case. Noor’s father, Shaukat sb., was there a couple of days after he had buried his daughter.
Zahir was supposed to have arrived over two hours ago, but there was a holdup at the thaana. So shaukat sb. waited. There was an empty room next to the court that Zahir was to be brought to. The fan wasn’t working and it was really really hot. But Shaukat sb. sat in silence, in the still heat, and he waited.

Today, the IHC declared the Pak Naval Farms as well as the Naval Sailing Club in Rawal Lake to be illegal, with orders for the CDA to demolish the club and take over the housing scheme.

Criminal proceedings to be initiated against the former Naval Chief. The mandate of the armed forces has been expressly prescribed under the constitution. This does not confer the jurisdiction or authority to engage in real estate ventures.

After the Domestic Violence Bill/Council of Islamic Ideology debate, it became apparent that there wasn’t a single female on the Council.
Today @zainabjanjua1 and I filed a petition on behalf of @Mahamali05 directing the President to (at the very least) correct this.
(Thread) Article 228 of the constitution says the president must appoint ‘at least one’ woman to the council. Predictably, this minimum threshold is usually treated as an upper cap.

But for the present council, not even this was followed. The council currently consists of 12 men.