Breaking News: Culture has become. If the verdict is in favor, then justice

During the hearing on the presidential reference filed in the Supreme Court for interpretation of Article 63A, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan remarke...

Celebrities who disinherited their children

How Napoli became one of the best teams in Europe

During the hearing on the presidential reference filed in the Supreme Court for interpretation of Article 63A, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that it has become a culture that if the verdict is in favor, then justice and if it is against, it is said that justice is done. Done.

 

Reference in Supreme Court was filed by former Attorney General Khalid Javed Khan - File Photo: Supreme Court Website

A five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial heard the presidential reference filed for interpretation of Article 63A.

PPP lawyer Farooq H Naik, while initiating the arguments, said that voting for another party while remaining in the party is a floor crossing. The Attorney General had given political and moral arguments for disqualification for life.

Farooq Naik said that no constitutional argument has been given on the lifelong disqualification of the deviant members, every action depends on the intention, the intention to include Article 63A in the constitution must also be seen, Articles 62 and 63 from 1973 to date very much Every government and dictator has been amending Articles 58, 62, 63 and 96.

 

Also read: Protection of the Constitution is abused but will continue to do its job, Chief Justice

Justice Ejaz-ul-Haq remarked that apparently the purpose of Article 63A was to prevent deviation from the party. True or false, deviation is found to be wrong, then we will see what the effects will be.

He further said that history has shown that deviation from the party does not happen only on awakening of conscience, in many western countries there is an attempt to prevent deviation from the party, what is the punishment for deviation from the party?

Farooq H Naik said that the disqualification of the deviant member would be for the rest of the term of the Assembly.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that you are acknowledging the crime of deviation from the party, if deviation from the party is a crime then why the vote of the culprit is counted.

Also read: Presidential reference to interpretation of Article 63A set for hearing

Farooq H Naik said that there could not be a case of 302 for intent to kill, what is the punishment for the crime. The real question is, Article 63A was added on the removal of Article 58 (2) B.

The Chief Justice said that no one followed the opinion of the court in the Senate election case, why political parties are neutral on deviation, those who deviate from the party are given positions elsewhere.

Lawyer Farooq H Naik took the position that democracy in Pakistan has not matured yet.

Read more: Presidential Reference to Interpretation of Article 63A: Supreme Court Forms Larger Bench

The Chief Justice said that it would be difficult to get a bench from next week. We will hear the case till 2 o'clock today.

Farooq H Naik said that it would be difficult to complete the arguments in half an hour, I will try to complete the arguments in one hour tomorrow.

He said that Article 96 of the 1973 constitution was to prevent party deviation, adding that in the 1973 constitution the vote of a deviating member could not be counted.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that there was no disqualification in the constitution as the vote was neutral.

Farooq H Naik said that the military dictator had included Articles 62 and 63 in the constitution.

Wherever the authority is excessive, the use will be wrong, Justice Jamal Khan

The Chief Justice said that a judicial declaration was included in Article 62 of the 18th Amendment.

Justice Jamal Khan asked whether it is a crime to vote against the party on the voice of a member, what is the crime which is allowed in the constitution.

Read also: Government decides to file reference in Supreme Court for interpretation of Article 63A

Farooq H Naik said that these are the problems of the new democratic forces.

Justice Ejaz-ul-Haq said that according to the American judge, people will not vote for the government which does not accept the court decision.

Farooq H Naik said that our country is currently heading towards chaos, no one is ready to accept the decision of the Supreme Court.

On this, the Chief Justice said that the situation is not so bad, don't talk in general terms.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan while giving remarks said that it has become a culture that if the verdict is in favor then justice is done, if it is against then justice is done.

Justice Jamal Khan said that the people also know what the decision is, whatever the leader says, the people follow him.

Read also: Sindh House is the center of horse trading, strict action plan, Fawad Chaudhry

Farooq H Naik said that the 17th Amendment gave immense powers to the Prime Minister and the party chief. Even the Supreme Court could not take action against the Prime Minister.

The Chief Justice said that suppose there is a fourth year of no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister, the reference goes to the Election Commission against the deviant members, it takes one year for the Election Commission and the Supreme Court to reach a decision. No action will be taken against the deviant member.

Farooq Naik said that the Election Commission is bound to decide on the disqualification reference within the stipulated period.

Justice Jamal Khan said that the Supreme Court is also bound to decide for a fixed period of time.

Farooq H Naik said that in the nineties, assemblies were dissolved using 58-2B powers.

The Chief Justice said that the purpose of Article 63A was disqualification.

Farooq H Naik took the position that Article 63A does not even mean the execution of a deviant member.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that if the Election Commission can reject the reference against the deviant members, deviance is such a big crime then why voting against the Prime Minister was not banned.

The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the case till one o'clock tomorrow.

Case background

It may be recalled that a reference was sent to the Supreme Court by the President for the interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution. The reference raises the following questions before the Supreme Court:

    Given the spirit of the Constitution, which interpretation of Article 63A would be acceptable to prevent the scourge of deviation and ensure transparency of the electoral process, democratic accountability:

i) Interpretation which in case of deviation does not allow any prior action other than de-seating the member in accordance with the prescribed procedure such as any kind of restriction or barring him from contesting the election anew.

ii) A strong, meaningful interpretation that would disqualify a member involved in such a constitutionally prohibited act for life and neutralize the effects of the deviant vote and uproot the practice.

    Will the vote of a member who is involved in a constitutionally forbidden and morally reprehensible act be counted or can such votes be excluded?

    Will a member who does not resign from the assembly seat on hearing the voice of his conscience and commits a deviation which cannot be considered honest, virtuous and sensible be disqualified for life?

    In the current constitutional and legal framework, what steps can be taken to prevent floor crossings, vote buying and selling?

It may be recalled that the Supreme Court had constituted a five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial to hear the reference sent by the President for the interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution.