SC adjourns hearing on deputy speaker’s ruling till 11:30am today; CJP Bandial says same bench will hear case
Islamabad
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the coalition government’s request to form a full court bench on petitions related to the recently held Punjab chief minister’s re-election including a review of its interpretation of Article 63-A.
The case was heard by a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Atta Bandyal on Monday.
The request for the full bench was made by the government during the hearing of a petition filed by PML-Q leader Chaudhry Parvez Elahi challenging Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Mohammad Mazari’s decision in the chief minister’s re-election last week, which led to Hamza Shehbaz’s victory.
During the re-election, Mazari had decided against counting the votes of 10 PML-Q lawmakers, which were cast in Elahi’s favour, citing a letter written by PML-Q President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain in which he had instructed them to vote for Hamza instead.
During the hearing, Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Atta Bandyal remarked that constitutional and public interest cases should not be left hanging.
The chief justice maintained that full court had been formed in the past in the matter of utmost importance and added that the full bench could be formed if the issue lingered on. “We believe that the full court is only constituted when the matter is complicated,” the CJP remarked.
Chief Justice Bandial said the main point of contention before the bench was that whether a party head could issue directions to his parliamentary party members or not. The bench also allowed the counsels of PPP and PML-Q chief Chaudhry Shujaat to present their arguments in the case. PML-N’s counsel Irfan Qadir told the bench that Punjab CM Hamza Shehbaz and the coalition government wanted full bench to hear the matter.
He maintained that the apex court’s verdict on Article 63-A of the Constitution was contradictory and added that only Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had the authority to decide the defection of lawmakers.
“We have to see whether the party head could be a substitute to the parliamentary head as in this case party head directed the parliamentary party members,” the CJP remarked.
During the hearing, the CJP also commented on the anti-judiciary smear campaign, saying, “Social media looks towards perception instead of facts but we are not concerned about this.”
The chief justice told PPP’s counsel Farooq H Naik that his party through the 18th Constitutional Amendment empowered the parliamentary head and also cited an example of Britain that former PM Boris Johnson was also asked to step down by his party head in the parliament.
“The internal matters of parliament should not be brought before the court,” said Naek. To which Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked, “Was no-confidence motion [against ousted PM Imran Khan] parliament’s internal matter?”
“Back then you would say that the court has full authority but today you are taking different stance as you are standing on the other side,” Jusitce Ijaz told the PPP counsel. “The time and circumstances have changed today,” replied Naek.
Jusitce Ijaz maintained that the case before the bench is related to the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order and not constitutional.
