ISLAMABAD   -   Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) senior leader Senator Irfan Siddiqui Thursday said that the Supreme Court’s decision on review petition on Article 63-A of the Constitution had rectified a grave mistake.

“It (the decision) has provided relief to the Constitution, not to the government or any party,” Senator Siddiqui said during an interview with a private TV channel. Siddiqui referred to the judgment of the top court and said that two years ago, Justices Bandial, Ejazul Ahsan, and Munib Akhtar added an additional sentence to the Constitution. The motive for rewriting the Constitution was to dissolve government of a specific party in Punjab and pave the way for forming a government for another specific party, he added.

“The sole purpose was to replace Hamza Shahbaz with Chaudhry Parvez Elahi as Chief Minister,” the Senator said. Responding to a question, Senator Siddiqui stated that “the most terrifying form of tyranny is judicial tyranny.” He noted that administrative tyranny cannot exceed limits, and military dictator also stays within certain boundaries. However, judicial tyranny uses justice as a weapon and crosses all limits, he said.

Talking about JUI-F chief, he said, “We first need Maulana Fazlur Rehman and then his votes.” Addressing misgivings revolving around legislation, he said that everything was happening in broad daylight, with media discussions and political parties negotiating. He added that Fazl would soon reach a decision, and a parliamentary session would be convened in a week or 10 days. The senator said that creating chaos in the country during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting aligns with PTI’s role, as they did the same in 2014 and are preparing for it again today. “PTI’s mindset of May 9 hasn’t changed,” he said. Siddiqui concurred with Bilawal Bhutto Zardari there would be obstacles in the way of amendments after October 25. Talking about the consultation process, he said that during the meeting of the Judicial Commission on May 3, the Law Minister informed with good intentions that the government wanted to present a constitutional package. However,  it rang alarm bells, causing some judges to fear that would be hit.

Thus, three days later, on May 6, they made a decision in conflict with the Constitution and law, attempting to deprive the ruling coalition of a two-thirds majority to prevent any constitutional amendment, he added. “If we wanted to do it in the dead of night, we would have remained silent,” he said.