A five-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan adjourned hearing appeals in the Article 63-A case on Tuesday. The hearing took place after the bench was reconstituted.
Led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the bench includes Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Jamal Mandokhail.
Chief Justice expresses surprise at the merging of two boundaries, questioning the government in power at the time of the PTI’s petition.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa questioned Supreme Court Bar Association lawyer, Shahzad Shokat, about the President of Pakistan at the time a petition was filed by the PTI. Shokat confirmed that Arif Alvi was the President.
The Chief Justice noted that the same government was also the petitioner in the case. Shahzad Shokat then read aloud Article 63-A of the Constitution.
The Chief Justice inquired about the legal questions raised by the President. The lawyer explained that the President had raised four questions in the reference, seeking an opinion on the element of treason under Article 63-A. The court stated that Article 63-A cannot be considered in isolation. The court ruled that political parties are essential for democracy and that deviation from party policy is cancerous for political parties.
The Chief Justice asked if the judgment included a provision for disqualifying the dissenting members. The Additional Attorney General clarified that while the votes of the dissenting members would not be counted, the judgment did not order their disqualification.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa observed that the Constitution clearly defines the process of no-confidence motions, the election of the Prime Minister and Chief Minister, and money bills. He questioned how anything could be added to the Constitution when it is already clear.
ustice Qazi Faez Isa remarked that if the votes in a no-confidence motion are not counted, the Prime Minister cannot be removed; meaning Article 95 becomes ineffective.
Shahzad Shokat questioned why there’s a condition for the budget’s parliamentary approval if votes aren’t counted. Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa responded that the purpose of holding a vote is to count it.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked if the minority decision should also be challenged. He further questioned what would happen if the parliamentary party and the party leader make different decisions.
The Chief Justice asked what would happen if the assembly members don’t like the party leader, Prime Minister, or Chief Minister.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail cited a precedent in a minority decision, mentioning an instance in Balochistan where members brought a no-confidence motion against their own Chief Minister.
The court’s May 17, 2022, decision on a presidential reference regarding Article 63-A stated that a vote cast by a defected member of parliament against party policy would not be counted and that the duration of disqualification would be determined by Parliament.
The SC had previously scheduled the review appeals on the interpretation of Article 63-A for September 23.
A meeting of the Supreme Court’s Practice and Procedure Judges Committee ran into a hurdle on Tuesday after Justice Mansoor Ali Shah did not attend.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Aminuddin Khan waited for the senior pusine judge for a siginificant time, according to sources.
Read more:
Drama in SC as Justice Munib refuses to show up for Article 63-A hearing
Here’s how Article 63-A dictates loyalty of parliament members
Defection law verdict review: Justice Akhtar responds to ‘purported’ SC order
The committee had met to reconstitute a bench to hear the appeals against Article 63-A of the constitution.
CJP Isa proposed Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s name for the bench in place of Justice Munib Akhtar, who had announced that he would not sit on the bench.
However, since Justice Mansoor did not attend the meeting, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan was added to the bench.
CJP Isa added that the bench would try to convince Justice Munib to attend the proceedings on Tuesday. He added that the letter could not be added to the court’s record as per tradition.
