In a major relief to the incumbent government, the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday accepted the review petition and terminated the previous judgment pertaining to Article 63A of the Constitution.
The court ruled that the defecting lawmakers’ votes should indeed be counted and said that the detailed judgment would be issued later on.
A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Amin ud Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Mazhar Alam and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, announced the short order.
The chief justice said that the review petition of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) was accepted unanimously, adding that the detailed verdict would be issued later on.
Earlier during the proceedings, Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf (PTI)’s lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar took the stance that his meeting with PTI’s founder was not held independently. The lawyer said that the PTI founder had requested that he wanted to give arguments himself before the bench through video link.
On this point, the CJP said that you were making unreasonable request. He said what secret things did you have to discuss with PTI founder? You were only supposed to discuss a constitutional issue, he remarked.
Ali Zafar said that the PTI founders had objection on formation of bench and stated that they will not be a part of proceedings. The court on the occasion appointed Barrister Ali Zafar as amicus curiae and asked him to assist the bench.
Ali Zafar, as amicus curiae, said that the objection was not against any personality, and instead it was on the formation of bench.
He said that the original petition was related to the vote in the no-confidence motion but the top court linked the presidential reference with the constitutional petitions. The court disposed of the constitutional petitions by declaring that it had given an opinion on the reference, and the review petition’s scope was limited, he said.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan said that one may be unhappy with the Constitution or the death penalty, but everyone was bound to implement it. “Can a judge take an oath and saying that he is not happy with this provision of the Constitution,” he questioned.
The CJP said that the head of the party had the authority to give or not to give a declaration of defection to someone. The members of the assembly or political parties were subordinate to their leader, not the judges, he said.
On the query of the bench, Farooq H. Naek said that party elections were held under the Election Act, in which the decision of the party chief was taken.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa said that the decision of Article 63 A was a majority decision by the margin of one judge. He questioned that if the opinion of one judge was heavy on the parliament.
He asked that whether the court should send the matter to the President to decide which opinion he agreed with.
Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman opposed the option and said that the constitutional petitions had also been dealt with the reference. The matter of dealing with the constitutional petitions could not be sent to the President, he added.
The chief justice said that if Article 63A was clear, then what was the need for its interpretation. Appeals of disaffected members also have to come to the Supreme Court, and if the court decision leads to disqualification, the appeal will be ineffective, he remarked.
The Additional Attorney General said that the decision on Article 63A was full of contradictions. He said that on the one hand it said that vote was a fundamental right but at the same time this right was abolished on the direction of the party.
