Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday remarked Article 63-A of the Constitution talked about de-seating of a lawmaker and not disqualification as it was the most appropriate explanation in the language of Constitution related to end the membership of a lawmaker. The court could only interpret the Constitution, he said, adding legislation was not the responsibility of courts.

He expressed this while hearing the presidential reference seeking the top court’s interpretation on 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.

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

In his arguments, Attorney General of Pakistan Khalid Javed Khan gave reference to the prime minister's address in Kamalia, saying he had a conversation with the premier on the topic and he wanted to present his statement before the apex court.

The speech was delivered in view of 1997 attack on the Supreme Court, the AGP said, adding the prime minister had complete confidence and trust on the apex court.

During the hearing of the reference on Monday, the top court had taken exception to the PM's remarks during a public gathering in Kamalia in which he stated that Nawaz Sharif was trying to compromise the neutrality of top court judges.

PM Imran should avoid political remarks about top court judges: Justice Mandokhail

Sindh House attack case

When asked about the progress of the case related to the attack on Sindh House in the federal capital, Islamabad inspector general said the police has obtained arrest warrants of the accused from the magistrate concerned. All the accused, including the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf MNAs - Faheem Khan and Attaullah Niazi - would be arrested.

The CJP ordered to submit another report in the Supreme Court related to the progress of the case.

No evidence of terrorism was found against the accused involved in the attack on the Sindh House and no weapon was retrieved from their possession in an earlier report submitted in the apex court. It related to the attack on the government building where the disgruntled MNAs of the ruling party took refuge, citing "security concerns".

The earlier report also stated that further proceedings would be initiated against those involved if evidence of terrorism is found in the case. It added that out of the 16 accused in the case, only one Rai Tanveer could not be arrested. However, the police was raiding multiple place for the accused.

It went on to state that all the accused took bail from the judicial magistrate, but an application to cancel their bails has been submitted.

duration of disqualification under Article 63-A

In his arguments AGP Khan said the purpose of MNA's disqualification till the National Assembly completes its tenure could not be achieved under the Article 63-A of the Constitution till it is extended to the life time disqualification. Going against the party policy could not be considered a usual political activity, he added.

The real question is whether the disgruntled lawmaker who had declared his dissent from the party would be able to contest upcoming elections or not, said the AGP.

AGP Khan has presented the disqualification of disgruntled lawmakers into four types: they will not have to bear any consequences; they will be disqualified till the remaining tenure of the Assembly of which they are members; they will be disqualified for five years; they will be disqualified for life time.

The duration of disqualification of a lawmakers was not mentioned, the AGP said, adding that life time disqualification was mentioned for those lawmakers involved in criminal activities, while for misconduct it was for five years.

The attorney general asked the Supreme Court to interpret Article 63-A of the Constitution and specify the duration of the disqualification, adding the dissident lawmakers would not be allowed to contest elections again.

Justice Mandokhail inquired whether disagreement was tantamount to dissidence.

At this AGP Khan said the judges also disagreed in the verdicts issued by the court. However, difference of opinion was not equal to dissidence, he added.

Justice Mandokhail remarked that the issue would be over as Article 63-A talked about de-seating of a lawmaker and not the disqualification. He inquired whether the Election Commission of Pakistan would conduct inquiry whether a lawmaker was dissident or not.

In his remarks, Justice Ahsan said no evidence was required for the application of Article 63-A of the Constitution as a party head declared the disqualification.

Justice Mandokhail remarked Article 95 of the Constitution granted every members of the assembly to take part in a campaign as well as the Constitution granted right to an honest man to cast vote in the no-confidence motion in the assembly, while the AGP was trying to impose a sword of Damocles, permanent disqualification, on the lawmakers.

He added those who drafted the Constitution were considering de-seating a grave matter, while for the AGP it was a usual matter.

He continued the AGP was trying that the court would made a stricter law, adding no punishment was grave than sentence to death but people still kill others. Justice Mandokhail inquired about the forces which let people to commit dissidence and why did people dissent.

At this AGP Khan said who pressurized lawmakers to dissent and why do they do, these were not matters of the court.
The AGP concluded his arguments.

Advocate Makhdom Ali Khan, who is representing Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz in the court, in his brief arguments said Article 65 of the Constitution granted lawmakers right to vote and no one could bar the votes of dissident lawmakers from counting.

Later, the court adjourned hearing of the case till 11:30 am on Wednesday.