ISLAMABAD: Taking note of criticism of the Supreme Court’s verdicts, the Chief Justice of Pakistan said the Court functions 24 hours a day to dole out justice.
CJP Umar Ata Bandial said the judges have taken oath to defend, safeguard, and protect the Constitution. “We do our duty. We are [a] court of law and function 24 hours a day,” he added. He said that they (the judges) are bothered by the recent campaign. He was heading a five-member bench, which heard the Presidential Reference, filed under Article 186 of the Constitution, and a petition of President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Ahsan Bhoon filed under Article 184(3).
It may be noted that former Prime Minister Imran Khan, after his removal through a no-confidence vote, in public rallies has asked the judiciary to explain why it felt the need to open its doors at midnight on April 9.
Justice Bandial said in rallies of 10,000 to 15,000 people, the leaders criticise the apex court’s judgment. He said; “We respect them (the political leaders) and expect that they would show conviction, character and courage, and defend the Supreme Court judgment.”
“We have announced the judgment in accordance with the law and the Constitution.”
“The Constitution is sacrosanct; we have taken oath to protect and defend the Constitution. We will perform our duty in accordance with the law and the Constitution,” he added.
SCBA moves SC, urges it to ‘intervene’
The chief justice said in a parliamentary democracy, the party head is given certain powers. He said before Article 63A the description of defection was in the original Constitution under Article 96. However, General Zia removed this article (96) from the Constitution in order to hold party-less elections.
He said thereafter due to the judgments of the apex court, Assemblies’ elections were held on the party basis and the Court discouraged defection. He said in view of the Supreme Court’s judgments stringent law was made against defection. He said defection mentioned in the Constitution is not a minor issue, adding some people go to the extent that Article 6 should be applied against those, who defect their parties. He asked the advocate general that the Federation’s case is about the consequences of defection.
The chief justice said that the Presidential Reference says that Article 62(1) (f) should apply to the members who defect from their party and join another. The reference also mentioned about defection is “khiyanat” and matter of trust, the CJP added.
Babar Awan, who on April 14 filed a petition under Article 184(3) of Constitution, on behalf of PTI Chairman Imran Khan, requested the bench to issue notices to the respondents (the ECP, the NA speaker, the NA secretary and Federation). The chief justice asked him to argue on the Reference and inquired whether he likes to adopt the argument of (former) attorney general Khalid Jawed. Babar Awan replied “no”, saying he (the ex-AGP) had taken a summersault and did not plead Article 5 of the Constitution. He said; “I will argue on the instruction of my client.” The court ordered him to advance arguments on the Reference today (Tuesday).
Justice Bandial remarked the questions raised in the Reference are not by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf but those were from the President of Pakistan, which is still pending.
Mustafa Ramday, representing Balochistan National Party (BNP) argued that the President, by raising questions in the Reference, has asked the apex court to re-write the Constitution. Justice Muneeb questioned if the ruling party tables a constitutional amendment bill in the Assembly and asks its members to vote for it, but one member does not agree with the bill then the honourable thing for him is to resign from his seat and go to the people who had voted for him. He said when a party’s member resigns, its majority in the Parliament is reduced and it may not have two-thirds majority, required to pass the amendment.
Ramday contended why the extreme step of resignation is necessary, why the member become a slave of the party head, adding that if some members in a no-confidence motion against the prime minister have given vote then the PTI head should move against them, but so far they have not done so.
Justice Ijaz asked why we (Court) reward a member who defects a party, on whose ticket he entered Parliament. He said that the Constitution dislikes the act of defection. Justice Muneeb said the defection is destruction of the parliamentary party and asked the counsel whether he likes to say that the existence of Article 63A make Article 95 redundant.
Mustafa Ramday said the decision to disqualify a member has to be based on evidence that defection has taken place. He said the question is whether the party head (the PM) wanted to initiate a process against a member he thinks has defected.
He said in the Reference on Senate election the apex court gave an opinion, but nothing has happened against the members who had allegedly taken money, adding the Supreme Court was apprised by the then Federation that there are videos of members who received money for vote in the Senate election.
Babar Awan said cases against such members were sent to the ECP, but no action was taken against them.
The chief justice said the party head is the protagonist. “It seems his (Imran Khan’s) party was not serious to proceed against them,” said the CJP. He said the system has to be mature enough and the party head has to take initiative, but he left everything to the Supreme Court to take suo motos.
Justice Bandial said the apex court through a judgment has settled the principle for taking suo moto.
The chief justice said he is disappointed that the PTI did not follow the cases in the Election Commission against its members who received money in the Senate election. He said in the ECP it is also expected that the Commission would take suo moto, but it did nothing itself.
Babar Awan informed that two female members of the PTI had approached the ECP against such members. He said the ECP has to decide the case, as per the mandate of the Constitution, but did nothing. Justice Mandokhail observed this shows there is no fault in the Constitution, but in the political parties.
Earlier, the Advocate General Islamabad argued that defection has taken place in Senate elections and this Court has entertained the Reference. Justice Mandokhail said that many constitutional amendments were approved by the Parliament, but it did not include a clause in the Article 63A of the Constitution to make disqualification life-time. He questioned can the apex court increase the sentence in Article 63A.
He said when it is not written in the Constitution to disqualify a Member of the Parliament (MP) for life then how the Supreme Court could order it. He said by mistake or intentionally when the lawmakers did not include lifetime disqualification in Article 63A of the Constitution then how they (the judges) declare that a person who defects his party would be disqualified for life.
Hassan Irfan argued that oath of members does not provide allegiance to the party and overtake any party loyalty, which is yielded in favour of loyalty to the State and the Constitution under Article 5. He further argued that no legal questions have been raised. The questions raised can be addressed by the Parliament.
No confidence vote is an accountability of the prime minister or the chief minister. Both do not have permanence of office. They continue as long as they command the confidence of majority members. The case was adjourned until today (Tuesday).
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.