ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday has completed hearing into Punjab Assembly deputy speaker’s ruling in CM Punjab Election case, ARY News reported.
The reserved judgement will be announced at 7:30pm.
The hearing against ruling of Punjab Assembly deputy speaker in CM Election process continued for three days. A three-member bench of SC headed by the CJP resumed the hearing, here today.
During today’s hearing, Punjab Assembly deputy speaker’s lawyer Irfan Qadir and the PPP’s lawyer Farooq H.Naek appeared before the court. The PPP and Mazari’s lawyers apprised the court about the decision of boycott of their clients.
CJP Justice Bandial in his remarks said the demand of formation of full court is a delaying tactic and said the full court will only be available in the second week of September.
He asked the parties boycotting the court proceedings to show some grace.
The CJP said that “no legal” grounds were presented before the court; arguments were presented only regarding the party head’s directions; the court arrived at the conclusion that in the current case, there was no need for a full bench.
Read more: Ch Shujaat’s, PPP lawyers reach SC despite boycott
CJP Bandial said the real question was who could give directions to party lawmakers. The constitution clearly states that the parliamentary party will give directions to MPs, he said.
“There is no need for further arguments in this case. We will give priority to wrapping up this case as soon as possible,” he said.
Meanwhile, the top court sought assistance on the matter relating to directions by the party head or a parliamentary party.
“Assist the court over the legal questions or we will set ourselves aside from the bench,” CJP Bandial told Barrister Ali Zafar, the counsel of Elahi.
Giving his arguments in the case, Zafar said that the petitions against the 21st Amendment were dismissed by a ratio of 13:4 in a full court.
However, many judges gave different reasons for dismissing the petitions, he added.
Zafar told the court that the constitution mentions that the parliamentary party will give directions to the lawmakers about voting.
At this, the CJP questioned whether the party head and parliamentary party were two separate entities.
Read more: Ch Shujaat’s, PPP lawyers reach SC despite boycott
Zafar said that they were two separate entities.
CJP Bandial said that the parliamentary party does not may its decision on its own. In light of the political party’s directions, the parliamentary party makes its decision.
After being asked, the PML-Q counsel said that the world “parliamentary party” is used in the Political Parties Order 2002.
At this, Justice Ahsan remarked that the word “parliamentary leader” instead of “parliamentary party” is just a mistake.
Additional Attorney-General (AAG) Amir Rehman then came to the rostrum and said he wanted to present a few suggestions before the court.
CJP Justice Umar Ata Bandial after hearing arguments of the respondents remarked that the matter of interpreting Article 63A of the constitution has been settled and there is no need for further interpretation.
He also praised AG Punjab for his efforts of interpretation of the article but said his explain was ‘wrong’.
