14. One instance referred to before us was the abrupt dismissal, in April 1953. of a Prime Minister who had just got his budget through without any difficulty and also had, after the Punjab disturbances, in his capacity as the President of the Muslim League party, succeeded in getting his nominee elected as leader of the Muslim League party of the Punjab Assembly. The point of criticism was that the GovernorGeneral acted against the conventions of the parliamentary form of government in dismissing a Prime Minister who had such strong popular support. In the communique issued in this respect, reasons are given for the dismissal, but it is not necessary for our purpose to determine if they are valid or not. The fact which concerns us is that the Governor-General took a grave risk in dismissing a Prime Minister who had the confidence of the House, and we think that he would not have ventured to do so had he not the support of some of the members of the party in power. That he did have such support is clear from the fact that six of the members of the outgoing ministry joined the new ministry, and. what is more significant, he appointed, as Prime Minister, his personal choice, the then Pakistan Ambassador at Washington, who had been out of the country in the Foreign Service since 1948; and yet the very party which had supported the dismissed Prime Minister in the budget session accepted the new Prime Minister as its leader. Some of the politicians who appeared before the Commission, when questioned in this regard, explained that it was in the larger interests of the country that this Muslim League party acquiesced in what the Governor- General did. It was hinted that there was a threat of military action. This explanation is hardly convincing because when a more serious step was taken in 1954, viz., the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, its President was free to fight out the matter in the courts and, in fact, the Chief Court of Sind gave a decision in his favor. In our opinion, the Governor-General was able to make the appointment of the new Prime Minister because of the lack of solidarity in the party which was in a majority in the Constituent Assembly. He must have assessed the situation before taking the drastic step. for, had the party declined to accept the new Prime Minister as its leader, the Governor- General would have been in a very awkward position.
15. Another instance indicating the lack of solidarity of the party in power was the manner in which the amendment of the Constitution Act, curtailing the powers of the Governor-General in the matter of appointment and dismissal of ministers, was moved and carried in the Assembly. This step was taken so suddenly, and with such extraordinary hastc, that it was characterized in some quarters as a 'constitutional coup'. From the information before us it is clear that in spite of the objection taken in the steering committee by the Leader of the Opposition that sufficient notice of such an important amendment should be given, the President of the Assembly decided to dispense with the usual notice of three days required under the rules. The notices of the amendment appear to have reached the houses of the members very late in the night preceding the session, which was fixed only the previous evening. From the proceedings of the Assembly it appears that the motion went through without any serious debate. Reactions to this amendment were mixed. While some welcomed the change in the law as it could prevent the abrupt dismissal of a Prime Minister, and the appointment to that office of an outsider, others took the view that this measure was aimed at the then
