Only way for deviant MNAs to resign and go home, Supreme Court

ISLAMABAD, April 22 ( Alliance News): Remarking during the hearing on the presidential reference for interpretation of Article 63-A in the Supreme Court, Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the way of honor is for a deviant member to resign and go home.

A five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial heard the presidential reference in the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of Article 63A.

PTI lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar started his arguments through video link then Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial addressing him said Ali Zafar sahib if you don’t finish in 10 minutes then listen to Makhdoom Ali Khan. But Ali Zafar replied, “I will complete my arguments in 10 minutes.”

Initiating the arguments, the PTI lawyer said that the inclusion of 63A was aimed at eliminating horse trading, adding that violation of 63A is a violation of the Constitution.

He said that as a result of 63A, the vote will not be counted, the vote cast will be there but it will not be counted.

Barrister Ali Zafar said that there are court decisions on the role and importance of political parties, ticket holders of independent and political parties become members of assembly, 63A is related to members of political parties.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan inquired Ali Zafar. You are saying there will be no vote cast. Barrister Ali Zafar replied that I am appealing through judicial interpretation.

Justice Mazhar Alam Mian Khel said that the decision of deviation is to be taken by the party chief.

The court inquired whether the vote would be counted if there was no direction from the political party.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that counting of votes and deviation are two different things.

Deviant votes should not be counted to end national interest and curse: Barrister Ali Zafar
Barrister Ali Zafar said that first the chief would issue instructions, then issue a declaration against the members. He said that deviant vote should not be counted to end national interest and curse.

Justice Jamal Khan asked whether the vote would not be counted even in the absence of declaration. If the vote is not counted then it does not mean any crime, no restriction has been imposed on not voting, it is stated in 63A that the vote will be cast but the seat will be lost.

Justice Mazhar Alam said that the party chief would issue the declaration only after the vote was cast, to which Barrister Ali Zafar said that the party chief could also inform the speaker when the vote was cast.

Justice Jamal Khan said that after the vote was cast, the party chief would first issue a show cause notice and get a reply.

The Chief Justice asked, “Are you saying that the direction of the parliamentary party is of the majority?” You are saying that it is not a panel code that a crime has been committed, then action will be taken only after the body is found. The party chief says the punishment is not clear to curb his excessive powers.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that the question is whether the decision is made by the head or the parliamentary party. What is the procedure of decision making in the parliamentary party?

Barrister Ali Zafar said that a political parliamentary party has a constitution, the majority of political parties decide.

Justice Jamal Khan said, “Can’t a political party cure this cancer on its own? If political parties are in trouble, then treat them. Most of the parties in front of us are against your position. What do you expect? Admittedly, only one political party is against deviant members of parliament.

Barrister Ali Zafar said that the right of interpretation is with the court, I can understand that the court does not want to go beyond the interpretation.

Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan said that it was very clear that it was the job of the parliament to legislate, it was the job of the court to interpret it.

Meanwhile, the court directed PTI lawyer Ali Zafar to submit written submissions.

Lawyer Azhar Siddique appeared on behalf of PML-Q and accepted the arguments of Barrister Ali Zafar.

Lawyer Muslim (Q) while addressing the court said that Article 63A is a protective wall against the no-confidence motion, referring to the Charter of Democracy, adding that the champions of democracy had agreed to respect the mandate. What has been done in practice is against the Charter of Democracy.

It is not his job to give evidence as to why the member deviated: PML-N lawyer
Later, PML-N lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan started his arguments before the court and said that he would not be able to complete his arguments in one hour today.

The Chief Justice replied that the bench would not be available for the next two weeks.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that he would return from abroad on May 14, to which the Chief Justice replied that he would summarize his arguments and then we would see.

Continuing his speech, the PML-N lawyer said that the term of the National Assembly is 5 years and a deviant member can be disqualified only up to the term of the Assembly.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here