SC adjourns hearing on deputy speaker\u2019s ruling till 11:30am today; CJP Bandial says same bench will hear case
\n Islamabad
\nThe Supreme Court on Monday rejected the coalition government\u2019s request to form a full court bench on petitions related to the recently held Punjab chief minister\u2019s re-election including a review of its interpretation of Article 63-A.
\nThe case was heard by a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Atta Bandyal on Monday.
\nThe 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\u2019s decision in the chief minister\u2019s re-election last week, which led to Hamza Shehbaz\u2019s victory.
\nDuring the re-election, Mazari had decided against counting the votes of 10 PML-Q lawmakers, which were cast in Elahi\u2019s favour, citing a letter written by PML-Q President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain in which he had instructed them to vote for Hamza instead.
\nDuring the hearing, Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Atta Bandyal remarked that constitutional and public interest cases should not be left hanging.
\nThe 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. \u201cWe believe that the full court is only constituted when the matter is complicated,\u201d the CJP remarked.
\nChief 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\u2019s counsel Irfan Qadir told the bench that Punjab CM Hamza Shehbaz and the coalition government wanted full bench to hear the matter.
\nHe maintained that the apex court\u2019s 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.
\n\u201cWe 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,\u201d the CJP remarked.
\nDuring the hearing, the CJP also commented on the anti-judiciary smear campaign, saying, \u201cSocial media looks towards perception instead of facts but we are not concerned about this.\u201d
\nThe chief justice told PPP\u2019s 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.
\n\u201cThe internal matters of parliament should not be brought before the court,\u201d said Naek. To which Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked, \u201cWas no-confidence motion [against ousted PM Imran Khan] parliament\u2019s internal matter?\u201d
\n\u201cBack 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,\u201d Jusitce Ijaz told the PPP counsel. \u201cThe time and circumstances have changed today,\u201d replied Naek.
\nJusitce Ijaz maintained that the case before the bench is related to the interpretation of the Supreme Court\u2019s order and not constitutional.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
SC adjourns hearing on deputy speaker\u2019s ruling till 11:30am today; CJP Bandial says same bench will hear case Islamabad The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the coalition government\u2019s request to form a full court bench on petitions related to the recently held Punjab chief minister\u2019s re-election including a review of its interpretation of Article 63-A. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":273492,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[9712,9825,9838,453],"class_list":{"0":"post-273474","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-top-news","8":"tag-apex-court","9":"tag-full-court-bench","10":"tag-pdm-plea","11":"tag-reject"},"yoast_head":"\n