Imran no more PM,
to work as acting for
15 days until nomination
of caretaker premier


ISLAMABAD: After the dissolution of the National Assembly by President Arif Alvi on Sunday at the advice of Prime Minister Imran Khan, the Cabinet Division issued a notification that Imran Khan no longer holds the Office of the prime minister.

“Consequent upon dissolution of the National Assembly by the president of Pakistan, in terms of Article 58(1) read with Article 48(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, vide Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs’ SRO No. 487(1)/2022, dated 3rd April, 2022, Mr. Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi ceased to hold the Office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, with immediate effect,” said the notification.

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Imran Khan consulting with President Dr. Arif Alvi on constitutional crisis in Pakistan on Sunday.

Even though Imran Khan has been de-notified as prime minister, he can remain in office for at least 15 days till a caretaker prime minister is appointed under Article 224. 

There is still, however, no clarity over how a caretaker prime minister will be appointed as the National Assembly has been dissolved — and the people who appoint the interim premier, Opposition leader in the National Assembly and the PM, are no longer in office.

While Imran Khan can continue to be the prime minister for selected days, he will not be empowered to make decisions that an elected head of the government can make.

CJP Umar Ata Bandial

Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial

Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial on Sunday said that all orders and actions initiated by the prime minister and president regarding the dissolution of the National Assembly will be subject to the court’s order.

The chief justice made the observation after taking notice of the current situation in the country following the dismissal of a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan by National Assembly (NA) Deputy Speaker Qasim Suri and the subsequent dissolution of the NA by President Arif Alvi, the spokesperson of the apex court said on Sunday.

First page of SC order

A three-member bench of the top court comprising CJP Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar heard the case today.

Following the chief justice’s observation regarding the prime minister and president’s actions, lawyer Asad Rahim said that until the court’s order is out, “the status of the national assembly is up in the air.”

In its written order, issued later in the day, the court did not elaborate on the status of the NA but directed that a notice should be issued to Attorney General for Pakistan Khalid Khalid Jawed Khan “on the constitutionality of the [deputy speaker’s] decision” to dismiss the no-trust motion on the basis of Article 5 of the Constitution.

Article 5 obliges every citizen to be obedient to the Constitution and law and says that “loyalty to the State is the basic duty of every citizen”.

In the order, a copy of which is available with, the court further observed that “it is contended that, prima facie, there is neither a finding recorded in the matter nor was a hearing granted to the affected party”.


It further stated, “We would also like to examine whether such an action (dismissal of the no-trust motion on the basis of Article 5) is protected by the ouster (removal from the court’s jurisdiction) contained in Article 69 of the Constitution.”

Article 69 of the Constitution essentially restricts the court’s jurisdiction to exercise authority on a member or officer of parliament with respect to the functions of regulating parliamentary proceedings.

“No officer or member of Majlis-i-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 Majlis-i-Shoora, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers,” clause two of the Article reads.

The Article’s first clause further says: “The validity of any proceedings in Maljlis-i-Shoora shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.”