The Supreme Court On Thursday, after the arguments of the judicial assistant and the petitioners were completed during the hearing on the review petitions against the interpretation of Article 63A, the decision related to this article of the Constitution was annulled.
The court while giving a brief decision said that ‘Supreme Court Bar Association and other appeals are allowed for hearing while the detailed decision will be issued later.’
The Chief Justice said that this is a unanimous decision of five judges.
In May 2022, a five-member bench headed by former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial said in a ruling on the presidential reference regarding the interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution that the vote given by a dissident member of the assembly against the party policy will not be counted, while the life Parliament should determine the period of disqualification or disqualification.
However, after today’s decision of the Supreme Court, the vote of the Member of Assembly will be counted.
A five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, heard the petitions related to Article 63A on Thursday, during which Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Founder Chairman of Imran Khan Barrister Ali Zafar boycotted the hearing and announced that he would not be a part of the hearing, after which the Chief Justice appointed him as a judicial assistant.
Barrister Ali Zafar said: ‘Imran Khan has said during the meeting that the composition of the bench is not correct, so we will not be a part of the hearing.’
Barrister Ali Zafar also requested the court to appear on video link of Imran Khan, which the court did not approve.
Addressing the Chief Justice, Barrister Ali Zafar said: ‘You have given him a chance before. Imran Khan has reservations about the court, he wants to talk.
On which the Chief Justice said that ‘Ali Zafar sir, you have not come to the court for the first time, you know how the courts work.’
Qazi Faiz Isa further said: ‘Generally, the client says that I should be given the opportunity to act as a lawyer, here the lawyer is saying that I will meet the client and tell him. You volunteered without a power of attorney, we welcomed you. At the first hearing you spoke one thing, at the second hearing another, at the third you spoke more.’
Barrister Ali Zafar told the court that ‘I met Imran Khan yesterday. There was no personal meeting. The police were present at the meeting.
This section contains related reference points (Related Nodes field).
On which the Chief Justice said: ‘You did not have to discuss any secret matters. This is a constitutional matter, you know.’
The Chief Justice told Barrister Ali Zafar that ‘you should give your arguments.’ To which he replied that ‘first decide whether you are allowing Imran Khan to appear personally through video link or not.’
Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa replied that ‘Ali Zafar Sahib, you are making an unjustified request, you are a senior lawyer, former president of the bar.’
Barrister Ali Zafar said that ‘I want to say something on behalf of Imran Khan, I will talk about the founder of PTI.’ On which the Chief Justice said: ‘You are an officer of the court, five minutes have been wasted.’
Ali Zafar told the court: ‘I will be out of the courtroom in the next seven minutes, if the founders do not allow the PTI, I will not appear, the government wants to bring some amendments.’
On this occasion, Justice Jamal Mandukhel remarked: ‘If you have to talk, do it not from today but from the beginning.’
To which Barrister Ali Zafar said: ‘What I want to talk about, you are not letting me do.’ The Chief Justice told him that ‘You are giving political talks to make headlines tomorrow.’
Barrister Ali Zafar said that ‘Imran Khan’s instruction is that the composition of this bench is not correct, they cannot proceed before it.’
He added that ‘the government is bringing you a constitutional amendment and judicial package, if you give a decision, it will allow horse trading.’
On which Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa said that now you are crossing the line, we can give you contempt of court notice, you are making insulting words before the verdict, this is a big statement, such a thing is allowed. will not give.’
Ali Zafar Judicial Assistant Speaker
After the boycott as Imran Khan’s lawyer, the Chief Justice asked Barrister Ali Zafar, ‘Can we appoint you as a judicial assistant?’ Jas Ali Zafar replied: ‘If it is a court order, then there is no objection.’
After which Barrister Ali Zafar, giving arguments as a judicial assistant, said that the President had asked for an opinion regarding the 63 A, a revision cannot be filed against this opinion, if further clarification is required, only the President of Pakistan should refer to it. could.’
The Chief Justice asked Barrister Ali Zafar that ‘an application was also filed by you in this case.’ To which Ali Zafar replied: ‘We had asked for lifetime disqualification on floor crossing. On this, the court said that you can legislate on it in the parliament.
The Chief Justice asked that ‘the majority judges who gave the judgment of 63 A wrote the word opinion or used the word decision?’ Barrister Ali Zafar replied, “It is for this court to decide whether it was an opinion or a decision.” The Chief Justice said that ‘it means you support the revision to the extent that the word decision should be replaced by opinion.’
Ali Zafar said that the Supreme Court has advanced the principle of the right to life given in the constitution, advancing the principle of a fundamental right does not mean rewriting the constitution, there is a right to form a political party in the constitution, it is not written. That the party can also contest the election, the courts interpreted and declared the political parties as eligible for the election, later there was legislation in this regard, but the judicial interpretation was first. This interpretation of the court was not said to rewrite the constitution.
The Chief Justice inquired that ‘Who is the judge to say that a member has defected? The head of the party has the authority to give or not give a declaration of defection to someone, members of the assembly or political parties are not subordinate to a judge or chief justice, political parties are subordinate to their leader.
On this occasion, Justice Aminuddin Khan also raised the point that ‘who chooses the head of the parliamentary party?’
To which Ali Zafar replied that ‘Members of Parliament choose their parliamentary leader.’
‘Voting against the party is suicide’
During the hearing, Justice Jamal Mandukhel asked the judicial assistant that ‘the right to vote belongs to the Member of Parliament, how can this right be called the right of a political party?’
On which Barrister Ali Zafar told them that ‘the parliamentary party instructs the members of the assembly to vote or not, the party head can send a reference of disqualification if the instructions of the parliamentary party are not followed.’
The Chief Justice remarked that ‘voting against the party on this basis is a suicide attack, the vote will not be counted and the seat will also have to be lost, if one does not agree with the party policy, he can resign.’
Ali Zafar said that “it is hoped that the seat may not be de-seated and the seat is saved, the court declared that no one will be allowed to take unfair advantage of the right to vote.”
‘If martial law is imposed, everyone becomes a rubber stamp’
Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa addressed Barrister Ali Zafar and said, ‘Is this interpretation democratic? Judges are not elected, they must remain within their jurisdiction. You are talking against democracy. The history is that when martial law is imposed, everyone becomes a rubber stamp.
On which Ali Zafar said that ‘We talk keeping in mind the national history, for this purpose the parliamentary party is formed.’ The Chief Justice inquired that if a judge uses the authority of a party leader, will it be democratic? Judges are not elected, if a member apologizes after defecting, it is possible that the party leader will forgive him. History has it that when a dictatorship comes, everyone keeps quiet for 10 years, as soon as democracy comes, everyone starts, after the Magna Carta, many people are unhappy with British democracy till today, despite this, democracy is there. It is running, let democracy run here too.’
“Horse trading is cancer,” says the 63 A verdict.
Barrister Ali Zafar said that ’63A judgment says that horse trading is cancer.’ On this, the Chief Justice remarked that ‘these wrong words have been used, the judge can only decide whether something is constitutional or legal, only a medical officer can tell whether it is cancer or not.’
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan inquired: ‘Why did PTI not legislate during its tenure regarding non-counting of votes? The motion of no confidence was about to come, at that time a reference was filed in the Supreme Court, at that time an attempt was made to use the Supreme Court instead of the Parliament, after filing the reference, the Deputy Speaker dismissed the motion of no confidence, here from the Chief Justice. Somoto was taken when some judges approached.
The Chief Justice asked Ali Zafar a question: ‘A person keeps thinking that I will kill so-and-so, but if he doesn’t, what will be the punishment? Can I get a challan if I just think about breaking the red signal? The decision of Article 63 A is a majority decision by the margin of a judge, is the opinion of a judge heavy on the Parliament? To which Ali Zafar replied that ‘Parliament does not like any interpretation, then it can enact another legislation.’
The Chief Justice remarked on the occasion that ‘democracy continued to be derailed because this court continued to endorse wrongful actions. There is no law to not count votes in any democratic country in the world, we hope that one day we will also become a mature democracy.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked: ‘Yesterday it was said here to give a decision against PTI. It is going on on social media that such and such a judge has dismissed one, so and so has dismissed that, make institutions important, not personalities.’ Ali Zafar told the court: ‘Whatever conversation I had after the boycott was as a judicial assistant, as a lawyer PTI founder, I am not part of the proceedings of the case.’
With that, Judicial Assistant Ali Zafar completed his arguments, after which PPP counsel Farooq H. Naik came to the rostrum and started the arguments. After hearing their arguments, the court declared the decision related to Article 63A null and void in a short judgment.
A view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan building in this April 6, 2022 photo (Photo: AFP)
Revision applications on interpretation of Article 63A
The Supreme Court had fixed the review appeals on the decision of interpretation of Article 63 A of the Constitution for hearing on September 23 this year.
Earlier on May 17, 2022, the Supreme Court had said in its decision on the presidential reference regarding the interpretation of Article 63A that the vote given by a defiant member of the assembly contrary to the party policy will not be counted, while the life-long disqualification or the period of disqualification should be determined by the parliament. .
A five-member bench headed by the then Chief Justice Justice Umar Atta Bandial heard the Presidential Reference on the interpretation of Article 63A and the verdict was delivered by a majority of three against two.
Justice Mazhar Alam Mian Khel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel, who were part of the bench, disagreed with the majority decision, while former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar decided not to count the defected member’s vote and disqualify him. was The majority judgment on the interpretation of Article 63A was written by Justice Muneeb Akhtar.
What is Article 63A?
Introduced to prevent floor-crossing and horse-trading, this provision of the Constitution of Pakistan was intended to keep the members of the assembly under party discipline so that they could not vote for any other party outside of the party policy and if they did so, they would be expelled. Assembly membership should be terminated.
In February 2022, former president Dr. Arif Alvi, through a presidential reference under Article 186 of the Constitution, asked the Supreme Court that when a member of the assembly votes against the policy of his party, he is disqualified as a member of the assembly. , but is there any way to stop it from voting itself.
#MPs #vote #contrary #party #policy #count #Supreme #Court
2024-10-03 21:59:22
