The Supreme Court has said regarding the constitution of the 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, that further hearing is required for this. 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. After the arguments regarding the formation of the full court by the Supreme Court, it took a break for the decision and after the break the hearing started, the Supreme Court made the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) a party. Request accepted.
The court said that it will hear the case on merit, the Chief Justice said that whether to constitute a full court bench or not, further hearing is required. On this occasion, the Federal Law Minister said that arguments have not been made on the revision case yet, it is a province of 12 crores and it is a serious matter. The Chief Justice said that 5 judges had sent the Prime Minister home, on which the Law Minister said that he wanted to apologize, but the Chief Justice said that you should not apologize, you had distributed sweets, we have to look at the Constitution.
Chief Justice Umar Attabandial said that if you want not to appear in the case, if the current government is not recognizing the Supreme Court, it is very serious, Article 63A has a long way to go. The Law Minister said that I have requested that creating a full court bench will increase judicial respect. Deputy Speaker Dost Mohammad Mazari’s lawyer Irfan Qadir argued that Justice Qazi Faiz Isa’s case was heard by 10 judges, it was the case of one judge and it is the case of the entire province. He said that it was Ali Zafar’s secret that this bench heard the case, Justice Qazi Faiz Isa was a judge who used the judicial council forum. Irfan Qadir said that Justice Qazi Faiz Isa’s case was heard by 10 judges while here it is a matter of one province. He clarified and said that I am not saying that there is a question about impartiality, but I am saying that if a full court is made, the respect of the court will increase. He said that there is an impression that the cases are heard in a single bench. He was a little annoyed at my opinion about the presence of the Deputy Speaker, on which the Chief Justice said that the full court is formed in bad cases.
The Chief Justice said that we have seen our decision regarding the full court, governance is a big problem in the country. The Chief Justice said that we took notice of the Deputy Speaker, but we did not take notice in this matter. The Chief Justice said that there is no need to prolong the case, good governance is a very important matter in our country, we automatically took notice in the case of the federal government. The Chief Justice said that in our view the Speaker has violated Article 95, to which Irfan Qadir said that the revision case cannot be separated from this case. Irfan Qadir said that there is no need for the Law Minister to plead in the Supreme Court. The Deputy Speaker’s lawyer argued that if the court says that the votes of the dissenting members will be counted, then the matter will get worse. The Chief Justice said that there is no need to prolong the case, good governance is a very important matter in our country, we automatically took notice in the case of the federal government, in our view the Speaker has violated Article 95. Irfan Qadir said that politicians as well as the judiciary should be united in their decisions, I am not criticizing the Supreme Court, we will go but the constitution should prevail. Earlier, at the beginning of the hearing, the court called former President Supreme Court Bar Latif Afridi to the rostrum and said that we see that there are many bar presidents present 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. He said that the review petition of the Supreme Court Bar is also pending, all the cases should be heard by forming a full court consisting of available judges. Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan said that let the case be set up.
All stakeholders will be heard, Chief Justice
Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial said that this case is directly related to our decision, we would like the parties to guide us. However, Parvaiz Elahi’s lawyer, 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 had submitted the application in the morning, 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. He said that the crises are getting deeper, the entire system is at stake, the 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.
To which part of our judgment did the Deputy Speaker refer in Ruling, C.J
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?
Lawyer Hamza Shehbaz said that I have submitted my reply to the court. Is?
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.
After the 18th Amendment, the party leader was replaced by the Parliamentary Party, Justice Muneeb Akhtar
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.
In the presidential reference, MPs were saved from the dictatorship of the party chief, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan
The Chief Justice said that the senior parliamentarians in this court had taken the view 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 Ijazul Ahsan said that parliamentary representatives have been given powers in the constitution, the parliamentary party decides who to vote for in the assembly, the presidential reference saved the parliamentarians from the dictatorship of the party leader. The Chief Justice said that many members complained about the party chief’s dictatorship, the party chief must also listen to the opinion of the parliamentary party. Lawyer Hamza Shehbaz said that the heads of 4 political parties are not part of the parliamentary party, JUI (F) is in the name of the party chief but Maulana Fazlur Rahman is not part of the parliamentary party, the answerable party leader to the people is the parliamentary party. Not a party.
A political party is essentially a parliamentary party, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan
Justice Ijazul Hassan said that the role of the party leader is very important, the party leader alone decides to send a reference against a deviant member, the parliamentary party will give instructions on who to vote for and the reference leader will send it. He further said that the political party is actually the same as the parliamentary party, the members who are elected by the people and sent to the assembly have the mandate. He said that in Britain all the powers are with the parliamentary party, in Britain the party leader has no role in the parliament. He said that the Deputy Speaker, while accepting the court decision as correct, had referred to it in the ruling. On this, the Deputy Speaker’s counsel said that the judgment was referred to the extent of rejecting the vote. Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan said that means the court decision is recognized to the extent of rejecting the vote, the question is only the interpretation of the Deputy Speaker whether it is correct or not. He said that the Deputy Speaker relied on our decision and went beyond the decision and gave the ruling. He said that the question is whether the Deputy Speaker interpreted our decision correctly, the question is also whether the Deputy Speaker did not interpret our decision wrongly. During the hour, Federal Law Minister Nazir Tarar intervened in the proceedings again and said that Mansoor Awan is young and has a lot of burden on his shoulders. Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial said that Mansoor Awan is giving very good arguments, the court stopped Mansoor Awan from taking instructions from the Law Minister. Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that Mansoor Awan is the lawyer of Punjab Chief Minister, how can he take instructions from the Law Minister. The Chief Justice said that don’t be bothered by the questions, continue the arguments. Mansoor Awan said that the Election Commission accepted the instructions of Imran Khan, the Election Commission decided on this matter, on which Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan inquired what the Election Commission has to do with this matter. The Chief Justice said that you have given the decision of the Election Commission, you should also read the decision of the Election Commission. Azam Nazir Tarar said that all the party members had received Chaudhry Shujaat’s letter before the meeting started. Mansoor Awan said that Imran Khan had given instructions to PTI in the first elections of Chief Minister Punjab, the Election Commission had declared the members deviant on the instructions of Imran Khan, Mansoor Awan had also instructed the MPs of Imran Khan. I submitted. Justice Ejazul Ahsan said that there is a difference between the earlier and the present case of Punjab Chief Minister election, the members of the Election Commission were of the opinion that they did not receive party instructions, in the present case the members say that the parliamentary party decided to vote for Pervez Elahi. what was
He remarked that none of the parties objected to the point of the parliamentary party directive, the dissenting members and the facts of this case are different, the dissenting members were of the view that we did not get the evidence and instructions, the issue here is different. He said that all 10 members cast their vote, no member voted for the other side, all the members voted for one side, none of the ten members said that the parliamentary party meeting was not held. The Chief Justice told Barrister Ali Zafar in a dialogue that do not argue on the merits of the case, argue on the formation of the full court, the other side has argued on the full court, you tell why the full court should not be formed, you are the other side. How to reject a full court request?
Barrister Ali Zafar said that Article 63A is very clear, the party leader has to give a declaration according to the instructions of the parliamentary party, the court has already given an opinion on Article 63A after detailed hearings, the instructions of the parliamentary party must be accepted. It is a democracy. Lawyer Pervaiz Elahi said that even those who give different opinions in the party meeting are bound by the decision. Barrister Ali Zafar opined that there is no scope in the Constitution for the dictatorship of the head of a political party, Article 63A and its judicial interpretation is very clear and unambiguous. Ali Zafar said that the Chief Justice has the authority to form a full court, in 15 cases the Chief Justice has refused to form a full court, the court has to stop all other work from the full court. The Chief Justice inquired whether the court decision of 2015 is unconstitutional, to which Ali Zafar said that there should be complete trust in the court, it is the discretion of the Chief Justice to form a full court, whether all court work is stopped and the full court is a single case. listen In the last 25 years, the full court has been constituted only in 3 or 4 cases, in the past years, the request to constitute the full court was rejected in 15 cases. The Chief Justice remarked that by not forming a full court, the focus of the court remained on other cases. Ali Zafar said that the government wants Hamza Shehbaz to stay as interim chief minister for as long as possible. The court had disposed of the no-confidence motion case in four days. Connecting other cases with this case will only waste time. The coming of presidents and giving arguments was beyond comprehension. He took the stand that it would be excessive to link the appeals and revisions of the dissenting members to this case, to end the crisis, it is necessary to take a quick decision, the revision petitions can be heard only by a 5-member bench, it is a simple case before the court. Yes, we and the entire nation have full faith in the court. The Supreme Court, while reserving its decision on the petitions related to the formation of the full court, adjourned the hearing for one and a half hours. The hearing will resume at 5:30 pm.
Security is tight
Earlier, only relevant leaders of political parties were allowed to attend today’s hearing. An Islamabad police official said that only the leaders of the defendant parties will be allowed to enter the court premises with the permission of the Supreme Court administration. In a statement from the liaison officer of Islamabad Capital Police, it was said that the lists have been provided by the party leaders for entering the Supreme Court, the leaders of the parties were allowed to enter the court room and the Supreme Court with the permission of the Supreme Court administration. will go
Police said that no jalsa, procession and gathering will be allowed in the red zone including the Supreme Court, special arrangements have been made to maintain the flow of traffic. The statement further said that for the positive global image of Pakistan, it is essential that all processes are kept peaceful and orderly.
Background of the case
It should be remembered that in connection with the election of Chief Minister of Punjab on July 22, Deputy Speaker Dost Mohammad Mazari rejected 10 votes cast by the members of Muslim League (Q) in favor of Chaudhry Pervez Elahi. He had ruled that the said votes were cast in violation of the orders of party chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, as a result of which Hamza Shehbaz was once again elected as the Chief Minister of Punjab. After an unexpected turn in the Punjab Assembly session, the Lahore Registry of the Supreme Court was opened at midnight to receive the petition of the Muslim League (Q) on the instructions of the Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandyal. After which Chaudhry Parvez Elahi challenged the decision of the Deputy Speaker in the Supreme Court through Muslim League (Q) lawyer Amir Saeed Ran. While hearing the said application on July 23, a 3-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar, directed Hamza Shehbaz to work as a trustee of the Chief Minister till Monday. Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial remarked that the Deputy Speaker’s ruling in Badi-Nazar is against the Supreme Court’s decision, however, the court adjourned the hearing till Monday. The Supreme Court in the order issued after the hearing said that Hamza Shehbaz will act according to the constitution and law and will not use the powers as Chief Minister, which will give him political advantage.