Supreme Court hears Presidential Reference on Article 63-A

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday resumed the hearing of Presidential Reference for interpretation of Article 63 (A), ARY News reported.

A five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial heard the case.

Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman, on resumption of the proceedings, informed the court that the new Attorney General not yet appointed.

CJP Bandial said that the AG had completed his arguments, adding that PTI chairman Imran Khan has also filed his petition. Babar Awan pleaded to court for issuing notices at the PTI plea.

“The issue in the petition already being discussed, the parties required to issue notice, are already in the courtroom, it is a constitutional issue, the court will continue proceedings on the presidential reference,” CJP replied.

Chief Justice while commenting on opinions over late night opening of courts said, “We don’t care what is being said at the social media, we are custodians of the constitution.” “This is the court working for 24 hours, no one is required to point finger at the court,” Justice Bandial remarked.

Advocate General Islamabad in his arguments said that the vote is the party’s trust, the conscience can not be sold for money, he said.

“All stakeholders are seeing towards the court, now the defecting members not going to the public,” A.G. Islamabad said.

“Some people opined that the members should be allowed defection,” Justice Jamal Mandokhel said.

It has become very easy to gather 10,000 people and say no,” Justice Mandokhel observed.

“The Parliament didn’t write disqualification for life clearly, the parliament did it deliberately or by mistake,” Justice Mandokhel questioned. “The parliament exists, the matter sent back to it for review why it is being taken to the court,” Justice Jamal Mandokhel said.

“It is the court who has to interpret the constitution,” AG Islamabad said. “The parliament should be allowed to amend it,” Justice Mandokhel said.

“Why we decide, when they gather 15,000 people and criticize the court decision,” CJP Bandial asked. “We want respect of the court verdicts, the court performs its constitutional duty. The national leaders should defend court decision. We are subject to abuses for protecting the constitution, but we will continue to do so,” the chief justice said.

“A basis of the parliamentary democracy is political party, political parties have been provided protection in Article 63,” CJP observed. “Ziaul Haq had deleted the clause related to defection from party, from the constitution,” the CJP said.

“After court decisions on horse-trading, an amendment was introduced in the constitution in 1998, while in 2010 Article 63-A was added with the 18th constitutional amendment,” Justice Bandial said.

“The violation of the constitution is not a small matter, several people face Article 06 over violation of the constitution,” CJP further said. “Article 06 not applied over violation of the Article 63-A,” he said.

“Presidential reference seeks enforcement of Article 62-i over the defecting members of the parliament. The court will determine, what will be the result of the violation of the constitution,” chief justice said.

“If the court can add life disqualification on its own,” Justice Mandokhel asked. “The court had declared life disqualification in the interpretation of Article 62-i (f),” A.G. Islamabad replied and concluded his arguments.

BNP-Mangal’s counsel Mustafa Ahad Ramday argued that the president has sought the court to rewrite the constitution. “Article 63-A is very clear,” the counsel argued. “If it will be a crime to differ with the party’s policy in the constitutional amendment,” the lawyer posed question.

“Abstaining from vote in the constitutional amendment and casting vote to the opponent are two different things,” Justice Munib Akhtar remarked. “Resigning is more reliable for casting vote to the opposite party,” he further said.

“How could the extreme step of resigning be only solution,” Mustafa Ramday said. “Bing bound to the party head is equal to servitude,” he said. “You are negating the parliamentary democracy with such argument,” Justice Munib said. ” Will you leave the party if you have differences with the party decision,” Justice Munib asked. “One can return back by winning the election as an independent candidate in by-election,” Justice Munib said. “How can you make someone honorable, who has been declared defector by the constitution,” the Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked.

The court later adjourned further hearing of the presidential referenmce till 1:00 PM tomorrow.