Deputy Speaker Mazari’s request to appoint a full court was backed by SCBA, Pakistan Bar Council, and several former presidents of SCBA.
By Naveed Naqvi
ISLAMABAD: Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly Sardar Dost Muhammad Mazari Monday moved the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) to appoint a full bench to hear the matter of the rejection of the votes of dissenting members of Pakistan Muslim League – Quaid-e-Azam (PML-Q) in the runoff election for chief minister Punjab.
His plea supported by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), several former SBCA presidents. It was echoed by a united call raised by the ruling Pakistan Democratic Front (PDM) leadership in a presser earlier today.
Read our earlier story: PDM leaders barred from entering apex court
When the court began its proceedings in the case after several hours’ delay, former Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President came to the rostrum and requested Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial to appoint a full court to hear the case.
He said the crisis was increasing, and that his request was endorsed by several former SBCA presidents present in the court. He said Parliament and the SC were part of the system. The CJ said he could see several former SCBA presidents in the courtroom.
The CJP enquired if the Deputy Speaker’s lawyer was present in the courtroom. Upon this, Mazari’s counsel Irfan Qadir Advocate came to the rostrum and requested the CJ to appoint a full court to conduct hearing in the matter.
Earlier, the apex court administration restricted journalists’ access to the court as the day began with a thick security blanket shrouding the SCP premises.
This is a developing story and will be updated more information becomes available.
UPDATE 1
Arguing on behalf of Deputy Speaker Mazari, Irfan Qadir Advocate told the bench the question before them was what if there is a discrepancy between the position of the party head and the position of party members who are in the house.
He said he would begin his argument where he left off during the hearing on Saturday. The CJP said the question was related to Article 63-A. Qadir said the learned court had already settled the question concerning Article 63-A in its ruling over Reference 1 of 2022.
He said he was trying to understand the question of the court but could not. “I want the court to clarify its question so that it can be understood”, he said, and added the hearing could resume following a short break after the court put its question into writing.
Upon this, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan said the problem could be resolved if the learned counsel listened to the court. The CJ concurred saying Qadir was not listening to the court. “If you interrupt the judges again, you will be seated”, he said.
Irfan Qadir assured the court he had not come to pick a quarrel with the court but to provide judicial assistance. “If the court is not angry with us, they will answer whatever question is asked”.
UPDATE 2
Irfan Qadir then started his detailed argument about the references made to the parliamentary party in the constitution.
He said the august court in its earlier verdict had stated that the purpose of Article 63 was to protect the interests of political parties.
The court next summoned Hamza Shehbaz’s counsel Mansoor Awan Advocate to the rostrum, who said he had submitted my response in writing. He remarked that Article 63-A had been added to the Constitution by the Fourteenth Amendment, and further clarified by the Eighteenth Amendment. He cited a verdict by an 8-member bench headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, ruling that the party chief was empowered to take all the decisions.
UPDATE 3
Justice Muneeb Akhtar took the position that Article 63A gave the authority of instructions to the party leader before the Eighteenth Amendment, which replaced the party leader with the Parliamentary Party.
UPDATE 4
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said the role of the party chief was very important, adding that only a party leader might decide to send a reference against a defecting member.
The parliamentary party would give instructions on who to vote and the reference would be sent by party head, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said.
UPDATE 5
The Chief Justice said a senior parliamentary leader had complained of dictatorship in parties during the presidential reference. He said leaders of political parties must listen to their members.
Noting how political leaders sitting abroad are used to giving instructions to members of Parliament, he said the parliamentary party was strengthened by the Eighteenth Amendment.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said the Constitution was clear that the members would be instructed by the parliamentary party. He told the respondents counsels it was their view that the interpretation of the Deputy Speaker was correct, but he disagreed with it.
He also said if the court decision was wrong, the votes could not be rejected.
UPDATE 6
As the back and forth continues between the bench and Irfan Qadir Advocate, Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan says If the counsel can prove from the Constitution that the party leader can overrule the decision of the parliamentary party, the bench would support his position.
UPDATE 7
Ali Zafar Advocate, representing Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, argued that accepting the direction of the parliamentary party was democracy, but said those dissenting with the dominant view were also bound by the party’s decision.
He said there was no scope in the Constitution for what he called “the dictatorship of the head of a political party”.
Article 63A and its judicial interpretation is very clear and unambiguous, Ali Zafar maintained.
The court asked Ali Zafar to argue against the formation of a full court and not on the merits of the case.
UPDATE 8
Arguing against the full court plea, Ali Zafar emphasised the importance of complete trust in the court.
He maintained it was the discretion of the Chief Justice to constitute a full court. He was askance, “Should the full court hear a single case by stopping all judicial work?”
He said the full court has been constituted in only three or four cases over the last 25 years, and in the past few years, pleas to constitute a full court had been rejected in 15 cases.
He said clubbing other cases with this one would only be a waste of time, arguing that it would be excessive to link the appeals and revisions of the dissenting members to this case. He said it was necessary to take a quick decision to end the crisis.
Ali Zafar argued the revision petitions could be heard only by a 5-member bench. There was a very simple case before the court, he said, adding, “We and the whole nation have full faith in the court”.
He further argued that the government wanted Hamza Shehbaz to stay on as interim chief minister for as long as possible.
He also said the court had disposed of a no-confidence motion case in four days, and remarked that former SCBA presidents coming and giving arguments was beyond his understanding.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan enquired when Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s letter reached the members of Pakistan Muslim League – Quaid-e-Azam (PML-Q), to which Ali Zafar said the letter had not reached them.
After Ali Zafar completed his argument, Imtiaz Siddiqui Advocate representing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) took the stand. He said the Deputy Speaker’s ruling wrote that I have just received a letter from Chaudhry Shujaat.
The Chief Justice remarked that when the Deputy Speaker came for the meeting, the letter was in his pocket.
Siddiqui said the doors are closed after voting and no one can come or go.
The hearing was adjourned for one and a half hours to allow the judges to hold a consultation if the full court the plea or the current bench. The proceedings will resume at 5:30 pm.
UPDATE 9
As the three-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) resumed its hearing into the runoff election on the Punjab chief minister at 5:30 pm, it invited the respondents’ lawyers to argue in favour of the full court plea. After hearing their arguments at length, the court again announced a short break before announcing its verdict in the matter.
UPDATE 10
The bench returned from its second break to announce its rejection of the request to form a full court to conduct the hearing into the matter. The three-member bench will resume the hearing of the case until 11:00 am tomorrow.
The court said it will rule in the matter after hearing the arguments.
PBC and SCBA call for full court
Ealier on Sunday, both SCBA and PBC called on the SCP to appoint a full court to hear the case in view of its gravity and to uphold the court’s integrity. The two press release may be read in full below.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
