The Supreme Court has adjourned hearing of the presidential reference seeking the top court’s interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Bar Association’s petition for peaceful execution of the no-trust motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan till Monday.

A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, Jusitce Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Mandokhail heard the case on Friday.

Justice Ahsan remarked no where in the Constitution is it mentioned that whether a lawmaker has to be loyal to the party and inquired whether an MNA submits a declaration that he will be bound to the party discipline.

While continuing his arguments in the case on Friday, Attorney General of Pakistan Khalid Javed Khan said a party allotted reserved seats in the National Assembly whose candidates do not get elected by voting from the public but a list is issued by the political party. Members of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf who had been elected on reserved seats were present at the Sindh House in Islamabad, he added.

At this, Justice Bandial inquired whether the MNAs who were not supporting the party leader were committing dishonesty.

Justice Ahsan inquired whether the ruling party's chief issued any directions during the prevailing political situation in the country.

A candidate who is associated with a party receives vote from the public in the name of party and he is bound to follow its policies, he continued, adding proceedings would be initiated against those voting against party policy.

In his remarks, Justice Mandokhail inquired whether members of a party are bound to follow party rules in case the party leader is violating the Constitution or party rules. The Constitution grants freedom of expression to every individual, he said, adding whether expressing such views could lead to life time disqualification.

He added would it be a better option that the president would call a meeting of parliamentary parties and consult the issue with them as amendments in the Constitution would be possible.

CJP Bandial remarked that the beauty of Article 63-A was that there was no need to utilise the clause of the Constitution as it would only be possible when democracy prevailed in political parties.

When Justice Miankhail noted that no MNA so far has violated the Constitution and that the government had filed the reference in the apex court, the attorney general said the aim was to prevent the crime before it happened.

At this Justice Miankhail inquired how a sentence would be fixed before the crime is committed.

The AGP responded the government had approached the court for explanation and interpretation of the law.

Later, the apex court adjourned hearing of the case till Monday.