ISLAMABAD: A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, resumed hearing of the presidential reference seeking the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution, ARY News reported on Tuesday.
PTI’s lawyer Babar Awan argued that those who were defaulting on payment of their utility bills were also not eligible to become a member of the parliament.
“If the time period is not fixed then the disqualification will be for life,” he argued.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether the lawmaker would continue to remain disqualified if they paid their outstanding utility bills before the next election.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan said that the members’ disqualification would end once the outstanding dues are paid. Only disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) is life-long, he said.
The “disqualification will remain in place until the declaration is cancelled by the court”, he further said. “Disqualification for the non-payment of utility bills cannot be for life,” Justice Ahsan added.
“It will be an affront to Article 63-A if a lawmaker was de-seated and then returned to parliament within 15 days to perhaps become a minister,” Babar Awan said .
“Carry out law reforms, the door of repentance is always open,” Justice Mandokhel said.
Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel called on the counsel to read Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution. “You are asking us to declare dissident lawmakers disqualified for life,” he said, to which PTI lawyer replied that it was a “serious crime”.
“In my eyes, the violation of Article 63(1)(g) is a more serious crime,” Justice Miankhel replied, adding that it concerned the ridiculing of the judiciary and the army as well as the ideology of Pakistan.
During the hearing, Justice Munib Akhtar asked how Article 63-A was related to Article 62(1)(f). Awan replied that his argument was that Article 63-A itself disqualified dissident lawmakers for life.
“Should 26 lawmakers be allowed to abandon the party?” he asked. In this way, the party with the majority would become minority, he said.
“You want the Article 63-A to be as rigid that no lawmaker can defect,” Justice Ahsan observed.
Babar Awan argued that a surgical strike was added in Article 63-A under the 18th Amendment to get rid of the cancer that was defection. He added that the 18th Amendment was unanimously passed by the parliament.
PTI lawyer at a point, gave the reference of the SC verdict which allowed Musharraf to amend the Constitution, adding that the powers of the court are unlimited.
Awan called Supreme Court “the last hope” adding that the next move was to take to the streets and stage rallies.
“One says the judiciary should be independent while another says that it should be subservient to the Constitution. Parliament, the judiciary and the executive should all be subservient to the Constitution,” Justice Jamal Mandokhail observed.
“Only the judiciary can ensure everyone is subservient to the Constitution”, Awan said. The judiciary not only interprets the Constitution but also makes laws clear with its decisions, he said.
Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) lawyer Azhar Siddique, began his arguments after Babar Awan.
Justice Mandokhail asked whether an independent lawmaker took an oath when joined a political party. “Does the independent lawmaker swear to abide by the party’s each and every decision?” he asked.
“Who will decide what is the role of a person,” Justice Jamal Khan further asked. “The constitution has authorized the party’s head to determine the member’s character,” Azhar Siddique said.
He said British parliament members resign even if suspected of indulging in corruption worth a mere one pound. Here, those disqualified by our courts are not ready to accept the verdict, he said.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail stated that Article 63-A provides a forum for taking action against dissident members. Siddique added that dissident lawmakers could also not cast their vote.
Justice Mandokhail observed that the punishment under Article 63-A was to rescind the membership of the dissident member. “Do you want an increase in the punishment for a defecting member?” he asked.
PML-Q lawyer replied that his argument did not concern the extension in the lawmaker’s punishment. “Article 63-A is a protective wall against a no-confidence motion,” he argued.
“How a defecting member being punished, when his vote will not be counted,” Justice Mandokhel asked.
“It has become a tradition to overthrow a government with money,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked. “The future of 220 million people is put at stake with the buying and selling of a few people,” he said. “This tradition should come to an end,” he added.
PML-Q lawyer also given reference of the ‘Charter of Democracy’. “If the parliament was agreed over it, the ‘Charter of Democracy’ had become a part of the constitution,” Justice Mandokhel remarked.
“Those involved in corruption facing departmental as well as criminal proceedings,” the lawyer said. “Wouldn’t it be appropriate that the punitive action initiated after the charges of horse trading and corruption proved,” Justice Mandokhel asked. “Proving corruption and defection are two different things,” the counsel replied.
