ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has reserved its decision on the petitions to form a full court to hear the petition against the ruling of the Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly on the election of the Chief Minister of Punjab.
A 3-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar is conducting the hearing again.
At the beginning of the hearing, the court called former President Supreme Court Bar Latif Afridi to the rostrum and said that we are seeing that there are many Bar Presidents here.
Latif Afridi said that the revision petitions for the interpretation of Article 63A are pending, the current political situation is very complicated, the Supreme Court is a constitutional court, our former presidents have met.
Latif Afridi said that the review petition of the Supreme Court Bar is also pending, a full court consisting of available judges should be formed and all the cases should be heard together.
Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan said that let the case be set up.
Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial said that this case is directly related to our decision, we would like the parties to guide us.
However, Advocate Ali Zafar objected to the demands of the former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar and said that none of our questions were answered.
Meanwhile, the Chief Justice had a conversation with PPP’s lawyer Farooq H. Naik, Justice Umar Atta Bandyal said that you do not have a chair.
Farooq H. Naik said that there is no question of the chair, he does not care about the chair, we submitted the application in the morning that it should also be heard.
The Chief Justice said that all stakeholders will be heard.
Latif Afridi said that appeals against the decision of the Election Commission are also pending, a full court should be formed to avoid a constitutional crisis.
Latif Afridi said that the crisis is getting deeper, the whole system is at stake, judiciary and parliament are also part of the system.
Deputy Speaker’s lawyer Irfan Qadir also requested the court to form a full bench while starting the arguments, then the court inquired on which points the full court should hear.
Irfan Qadir said that regarding Article 63A of the Constitution, you should read paragraph number 1 and 2 of your order, which will clear everything.
Irfan Qadir said that the President sent a reference to the interpretation of Article 63A, Article 63A cannot be read in isolation, instructions are given to the political party by the party leader, political parties have an important role in parliamentary democracy.
He further said that due to the weakness of the political parties, the democratic system may be in danger, deviation from the party policy is like a cancer for the system.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that only those members who are present in the assembly are part of the parliamentary party, there is a difference between a political party and a parliamentary party, can the same person give instructions to the declaration and the parliamentary party?
During the hearing, lawyer Hamza Shehbaz said that I have submitted my answer to the court. Where is he?
Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that the constitution is clear on direction and declaration, the role of the party leader and the parliamentary party are separate.
Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer gave an irrelevant answer, so the judges directed him to answer the main question first.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar told the lawyer that we have understood the point you are trying to raise, it would be appropriate to give another lawyer a chance.
Justice Ejaz-ul-Hassan said that party guidelines and declarations are two different things.
Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer Mansoor Awan said that the vote against the party policy will be rejected, that is the point.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan inquired whether the party chief can be the head of the parliamentary party. State on which part of the judgment the Deputy Speaker relied.
Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer said that the Deputy Speaker relied on paragraph number three of the judgment.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that Article 63A was added in the 14th amendment, what are the legal arguments about the head of your political party?
Mansoor Awan said that Article 63A was added to the Constitution by the 14th Amendment but Article 63A was further clarified by the 18th Amendment.
Giving arguments, he said that according to the 8-member decision of Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, the party chief takes all the decisions.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that there are two separate principles related to casting of votes in party policy, before 18th amendment Article 63A talked about directions of party leader, after 18th amendment party leader was replaced by parliamentary party.
He further said that earlier there was ambiguity in the powers of the parliamentary party and the party chief, after the amendment in Article 63A, the parliamentary party has the authority to direct, there are rules on the point of declaring the court decision unconstitutional.
Lawyer Hamza Shehbaz said that the decision on Article 63A is against the precedents of the past, the Supreme Court should form a full court on the issue of Article 63A. can do.
The Chief Justice said that the senior parliamentarians in this court had taken the position that the party chief could be a dictator, to reduce his role, the role was also given to the leader of the parliamentary party.
The Chief Justice said that there are hereditary parties in Pakistan, how can a leader sit outside and give instructions.
Justice A
