The judicial decision on reserved seats was written by going beyond the articles of the constitution, Atta Tarar – Pakistan

Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Atta Tarar has said that no one was surprised by the detailed decision of two judges of the Supreme Court on specific seats. The detailed decision did not come, relief was given to those who did not ask for the right from the court, relief was given to the party which was not the petitioner, how relief was given to 81 members, the members of the Sunni Ittehad Council did not say that Changed the party, the judicial decision of certain seats was written by going beyond the articles of the constitution.

While giving a press conference in Lahore, Information Minister Atta Tarr said that PTI had raised questions on the decision of the Peshawar High Court regarding specific seats. On behalf of the two judges of the court, Justice Naeem Afghan and Justice Aminuddin Khan, the norm is that a detailed judgment is made public within 15 days of a judgment being pronounced.

Atta Tarar said that in the detailed decision of the 2 judges of the Supreme Court who wrote the dissenting note, they have mentioned that why the written decision has not been issued by the rest of the judges yet? Some articles of the constitution talk about specific seats and this decision has been written by going beyond them.

Dissenting note of judges, decision of specific seats is highly controversial, Senator Irfan Siddiqui

He said that the judges raised the question in the dissenting note as to why the detailed decision was not issued despite 15 days. It is also recorded that PTI was not involved, so how relief was given to those who did not submit any application in the court, who did not ask for their right.

If relief is to be given to PTI, Article 51, 63 and 106 must be suspended. Two judges have issued a dissenting note on the decision of specific seats.

The Federal Minister of Information further said that he has terminated the membership of people who have been elected to certain seats, but the steps before the termination of membership are legally in place, how is it possible that you can be elected to certain seats? But those who were elected were removed from the seats, but the steps before taking the oath were not observed legally, it is a matter of great surprise.

Federal Ministers should stop criticizing KP government and respond to nation on expensive IPPP contracts, Barrister Saif

Atta Tarar said that it is a big question mark that 2 judges of the Supreme Court are saying that they have gone beyond the scope assigned in Article 175 and 155 and have given a decision in accuracy and not only that. has talked about Article 51, 63, 106 that it will be necessary to suspend the article of the constitution to implement this decision and the fact is also the same i.e. those who are members of the Sunni Union have not kept saying that we If the party is to be changed, will it be a floor crossing if they leave the Sunni alliance in the House and sit in the PTI seats, then will it not be a violation of 62-1F and 63?

Atta Tarar said that no one challenged the step that they went to the Sunni coalition, either this step would have been challenged by someone that we went to the Sunni coalition and they would have challenged that the Sunnis could not have gone to the coalition. Then again, they were considered members of PTI and those who were elected to the seats and their rights were lost, they were not even heard, nor were they called. In the Commission, which was scrutinized and then notified, their membership was terminated, but the rest of the process was not discussed.

He further said that we have filed a revision application on this, we thought it should be heard, but it has not been appointed yet, there are no holidays in constitutional institutions anywhere in the world, so this is also a holiday case. Coming up, the legal points raised by the 2 judges must be discussed and the suspension that happened is a big question mark on the legal framework.

The PML-N leader said that these are two issues, one is that the Sunni alliance asked for the seats which it was not entitled to and PTI was not the applicant, so should such a big relief be given to them? It is yet to be answered and I think that these are major legal points that need to be answered and a detailed decision must be made, otherwise the impression that one-sided relief has been given will give a blow to the constitution in the entire country. And this will be a setback for the rule of law, floor crossing will become legal, in the past, when Article 63A was interpreted, it was said that the vote will not be counted, there will not be membership and now it is being said. To change parties, and go to a party that had no position in parliament.

Federal Information Minister Atta Tarar said that these judges have raised very correct points in their dissenting note and it is very important to get a reply.