Shoulders of court are not so weak; these shoulders are Constitution of Pakistan: CJP Umar Ata Bandial
ISLAMABAD, May 16 (SABAH): The Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Monday said that the Supreme Court wants to conclude the presidential reference seeking interpretation on Article 63(A) by tomorrow (Tuesday). Chief justice observed that the shoulders of court are not so weak; these shoulders are Constitution of Pakistan. Chief justice said that the court will have to see which kind of question has been raised in the Presidential Reference. Chief justice remarked that the action committed in senate election will not be allowed to repeat, adding that the constitution while protecting the democracy also strengthens the political party, adding that in majority cases the party leader did not take action on violation of party. Chief justice said that the Article 63-A saves the system of the political party.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, heard the case on Monday.
During the hearing, requests were made on behalf of Attorney-General of Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali and PML-N lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan for an extension for the completion of their arguments. However, the CJP rejected the plea remarking that the court wants to make a decision on the case soon.
The top judge rebuked the AGP over “trying to delay the case after promising to assist the court” in today’s hearing. AGP Ausaf, at the last hearing of the reference, had asked the court to allow him to present his arguments on Monday.
“This is one of the most important affairs of public interest. Both AGP Ausaf and Khan are the counsels of the government […] their requests for extension mean that the incumbent government wants to defer the case,” CJP Bandial remarked.
Meanwhile, Balochistan National Party-Mengal’s (BNP) counsel Mustafa Ramday maintained while presenting his arguments that he wouldn’t defend any dissident.
He said that the party chairman doesn’t take action against the dissidents. “The court should also keep the conduct of the party chairman in view,” he said.
CJP Bandial remarked that maybe the dissident member convinces the party chairman with his reasoning for defection.
At this, Ramday said: “Our political parties do not have enough democracy [to let that happen]”.
Ramday maintained that Article 63(A) restricts defection and explains the entire procedure in case of the offense.
He said that if the said article didn’t explain the procedure, the court would have the choice to consider Article 62-63.
Ramday went on to say that it is not necessary that the defection benefits anyone and that’s the reason the lawmakers kept de-seating as the punishment for defection.
The CJP inquired if Ramday wanted to say that de-seating is enough for defection.
At this, the lawyer maintained that he doesn’t want to go beyond the procedure mentioned under Article 63(A).
“Adding more punishments with de-seating would further increase the divide,” he said.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked said that the Constitution does not condone the defection. He said that few individuals could not be allowed to derail the system and democracy and added that Constitution empowered the court to defend it.
Mustafa Ramday suggested the bench to not allow political parties to use its shoulder to decide political disputes, Justice Ahsan noted that it is not obligatory upon court to take up every political matter. He added that the court decides maintainability of the petition first then give its decision irrespective of whether its suits one party or not. “How democracy will work if every member acts as he pleases,” remarked Justice Ahsan.
Advocate Ramday said that the presidential reference was filed for political gains, adding that Article 95 could not be rendered ineffective through Article 63-A. On which the chief justice questioned whether the members were allowed to vote against their prime minister under Article 95? The advocate responded that Article-95 allows members to vote against party discipline.
“With this argument you have abolished the political party, in this way the political party will become a ‘Tea Party’,” the CJP said in response.
The court directed the PML-N counsel to submit his arguments in written. Later, the court adjourned the hearing on the presidential reference on Article 63(A) till today (Tuesday) 11:30 AM.
During the hearing on Monday, the Advocate General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Shumail Butt also concluded his arguments. Attorney General of Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali will present his arguments today (Tuesday).