During the hearing on the presidential reference filed in the Supreme Court for the interpretation of Article 63A, Chief Justice Omar Ata Ba...
During the hearing on the presidential reference filed in the Supreme Court for the interpretation of Article 63A, Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial remarked that as long as there are adherents of the Constitution, criticism does not matter, the door of the court is open to critics. While the Supreme Court stands for the supremacy of the Constitution.
 |
| Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial said that the doors of the court are also open for critics, the job of the court is to do justice to all - File Photo: Supreme Court Website |
A five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial heard the presidential reference regarding the interpretation of 63A in the Supreme Court.
PPP leader Senator Raza Rabbani, while initiating his arguments, said that after the presidential reference, the constitutional officials violated the constitution. Towards fascism or the formation of the Soviet Union.
Also read: Protection of the Constitution is abused but will continue to do its job, Chief Justice
Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that the Supreme Court stands for the supremacy of the Constitution.
On this, Raza Rabbani said that the campaign against the institutions was launched only after standing for the constitution.
On this, the Chief Justice remarked that as long as there are adherents of the constitution, criticism does not matter. Yes, even after making sacrifices, the PPP has always sided with the institutions. No matter what anyone thinks about us, they will continue to serve the country. They respect those who make sacrifices very much.
Attorney General continues to give irrelevant examples of Western democracy, Raza Rabbani
Raza Rabbani said that the Election Commission can review the declaration given by the party chief. The affidavit given in the nomination papers is of affiliation with the party, the original oath being taken as a member of the National Assembly.
He said that Article 63A frightens the members not to vote against the party policy, the members know that if they vote against the party then there will be consequences.
Also read: Presidential reference to interpretation of Article 63A set for hearing
Continuing his arguments, Raza Rabbani said that the Attorney General kept giving examples of Western democracies which are irrelevant. Political parties in Pakistan could not become institutions like other countries. The Minister resigns immediately in case of a railway accident. The Minister should resign in such accidents.
Senator Raza Rabbani said that there is no culture of resignation in Pakistan, a few days ago in Pakistan the Prime Minister was ready to violate the Constitution, the Minister was ready for serious violation but did not resign, Article on deviation from the party. 62 One F does not apply.
He said that under Article 63A, a deviant member is de-seated, not disqualified, the punishment for deviation is termination of membership and nothing more. Washing off is enough to embarrass the deviant member.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that he had cried after voting in favor of military courts. He had said in his speech that the vote is the trust of the party.
Read also: Presidential Reference to Interpretation of Article 63A: Supreme Court Forms Larger Bench
Raza Rabbani said that he could have faced the situation after resigning.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that he had not expressed any fear, on which Raza Rabbani took the position that there was no moral courage to resign.
Addressing Raza Rabbani, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that he was a senator, not an elected representative of the people.
Replying to this, Raza Rabbani said that my constituency is all over Sindh, even senators like to call themselves elected, resigning before voting against the party is not an option in our circumstances, resigning means ending political career. Is.
Read also: Government decides to file reference in Supreme Court for interpretation of Article 63A
Only courts can interpret constitution: Ali Zafar
At the same time, the arguments of Senator Raza Rabbani ended and Ali Zafar, the lawyer of PTI started his arguments by saying that two basic questions have been raised in the reference. The first question is about the punishment to be meted out under Article 63A. Is a deviant member permanently ineligible or not? 63A says that the seat will be declared vacant after termination of membership. The Attorney General said that along with 63A, 62F will also be read. Voting against party direction is unconstitutional.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that what are the consequences of violating the constitution, is there any lifelong disqualification for every violation of the constitution?
Ali Zafar said that the results would be different.
Justice Jamal Khan said that how can deviant members be prevented from trying to vote? Only after the vote is cast will the party chairman take action.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that Raza Rabbani said that vote would be a challenge which would be decided.
Read also: Sindh House is the center of horse trading, strict action plan, Fawad Chaudhry
Lawyer Ali Zafar said that I believe only courts can interpret the constitution. Chaudhry Muhammad Ali said that I am leaving because my colleagues have left me. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's party got two thirds majority. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was an intelligent man, he knew the past, Bhutto went to the opposition and said I want this.
Ali Zafar, while continuing his arguments, said that Article 96 was included in the constitution during Bhutto's tenure. According to Article 96, if some people in the majority go against the leader, they will not be counted. Asked, Bhutto told the opposition that he needed ten years for democracy, adding that the purpose of including 63A was to strengthen the political parties.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that even those who do not vote deviate from the party.
PTI lawyer said that even if you do not vote, there are consequences.
Inquiring, the Chief Justice said that in other words, you are saying that 63A allows voting, not counting.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that according to Article 95, if the no-confidence motion is successful, then the Prime Minister will be stopped from acting immediately. The procedure given in 63A comes to the Supreme Court.
Ali Zafar said that any vote to change the House would be considered illegal. The inclusion of 63A was meant to end horse trading.
Read also: Justice Isa objection to the bench constituted for interpretation of Article 63A
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that after the implementation of Article 95, the implementation of Article 63A begins.
Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that he would listen to Makhdoom Ali Khan tomorrow and Babar Awan after the Eid holidays.
Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman said that the federation would also put its petitions before the court, adding that the cabinet has not considered the case yet.
The Chief Justice said that this case should not be placed before the Cabinet now, a new decision may be taken.
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the case till 10:30 am 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.
No comments
Thanks