ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court of Pakistan Tuesday said it has become a culture in the country to appreciate the justice by calling it exemplary when the judgment is favourable but when it is against them the justice is ‘in tatters’.
A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial conducted hearing of the Presidential Reference, filed under Article 186 of the Constitution and the President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Ahsan Bhoon filed the petition under Article 184(3).
During the hearing, Farooq H Naek, representing PPP, stated that the country is heading towards anarchy as they (PTI leaders) are not ready to accept the law and judgment of the apex court.
At this, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan remarked that when the decisions are in their (PTI) favour then they extol the justice, but when it is against them then justice is ‘in tatters’.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said that the masses do not know about the judgments, and what the party leaders say they accept it and if the party leaders say it was bad judgment they accept that too and follow them.
Farooq H Naek explained that how Article 63A was brought in the 1973 Constitution. He informed about the constitutional history to curb the menace of defection. He argued that the disqualification due to defection should be one time and that is also to the term of the Assembly.
| Justice Ijaz remarks when decisions are in their (PTI) favour then they extol the justice, but when it is against them then justice is ‘in tatters’ | CJP says court gave its recommendations in a case regarding Senate elections but nobody followed that
About Article 63-A, Justice Ijazul Ahsan said that prima facie the purpose of this article was to stop floor-crossing. “The court wants to examine if the punishment for defection is harsh enough to act as a deterrent,” he added.
“What will be the sentence for defection, this is the actual question,” he said.
Justice Mandokhel asked that if defection was considered a crime then why count the vote of such a person? “Is it a crime to vote against the party lines…what kind of crime is this that has been allowed by the Constitution,” he questioned.
The Chief Justice said that the court gave its recommendations in a case regarding the Senate election but nobody followed that. “Why are political parties acting as neutral on defections,” he said adding that defectors were given offices in other parties.
The PPP lawyer contended that Article 96 of 1973’s Constitution was to stop defections and that as per the Constitution, the vote of defectors would not count. He said that there was never intent to disqualify a member on defection. Justice Ijaz remarked that you meant to say that if a member defects he will damage himself and that he will destroy his relation with the majority party.
Justice Bandial said that if a member casts a vote against the party line during the fourth year of the government then it would probably take a year for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Supreme Court to decide on the case against the said member. However, by the time reference would be decided the assemblies would have completed their term and the member would not face any consequences, such as de-seating.
Naek informed that at the time of introducing the 18th Amendment the committee members were divided as some wanted the removal of MP for defection, while others wanted that such members should remain part of the parliament.
Justice Ijaz observed that the purpose of Article 63-A was to prevent defection from the party, He added, “However, it remains to be seen whether the punishment for switching parties is strong enough to shake the conscience of a lawmaker concerned.” He noted that it had to be decided whether defection was right or wrong in the first place. “History tells us that defection doesn’t only take place because one’s conscience is awakened,” Justice Ijaz said. He added, “What will be the punishment for defection is the question.”
Naek contended that the defecting lawmaker would be disqualified only until the completion of the remaining term of the government.
Later, the court deferred the case till today.
A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial conducted hearing of the Presidential Reference, filed under Article 186 of the Constitution and the President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Ahsan Bhoon filed the petition under Article 184(3).
During the hearing, Farooq H Naek, representing PPP, stated that the country is heading towards anarchy as they (PTI leaders) are not ready to accept the law and judgment of the apex court.
At this, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan remarked that when the decisions are in their (PTI) favour then they extol the justice, but when it is against them then justice is ‘in tatters’.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said that the masses do not know about the judgments, and what the party leaders say they accept it and if the party leaders say it was bad judgment they accept that too and follow them.
Farooq H Naek explained that how Article 63A was brought in the 1973 Constitution. He informed about the constitutional history to curb the menace of defection. He argued that the disqualification due to defection should be one time and that is also to the term of the Assembly.
| Justice Ijaz remarks when decisions are in their (PTI) favour then they extol the justice, but when it is against them then justice is ‘in tatters’ | CJP says court gave its recommendations in a case regarding Senate elections but nobody followed that
About Article 63-A, Justice Ijazul Ahsan said that prima facie the purpose of this article was to stop floor-crossing. “The court wants to examine if the punishment for defection is harsh enough to act as a deterrent,” he added.
“What will be the sentence for defection, this is the actual question,” he said.
Justice Mandokhel asked that if defection was considered a crime then why count the vote of such a person? “Is it a crime to vote against the party lines…what kind of crime is this that has been allowed by the Constitution,” he questioned.
The Chief Justice said that the court gave its recommendations in a case regarding the Senate election but nobody followed that. “Why are political parties acting as neutral on defections,” he said adding that defectors were given offices in other parties.
The PPP lawyer contended that Article 96 of 1973’s Constitution was to stop defections and that as per the Constitution, the vote of defectors would not count. He said that there was never intent to disqualify a member on defection. Justice Ijaz remarked that you meant to say that if a member defects he will damage himself and that he will destroy his relation with the majority party.
Justice Bandial said that if a member casts a vote against the party line during the fourth year of the government then it would probably take a year for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Supreme Court to decide on the case against the said member. However, by the time reference would be decided the assemblies would have completed their term and the member would not face any consequences, such as de-seating.
Naek informed that at the time of introducing the 18th Amendment the committee members were divided as some wanted the removal of MP for defection, while others wanted that such members should remain part of the parliament.
Justice Ijaz observed that the purpose of Article 63-A was to prevent defection from the party, He added, “However, it remains to be seen whether the punishment for switching parties is strong enough to shake the conscience of a lawmaker concerned.” He noted that it had to be decided whether defection was right or wrong in the first place. “History tells us that defection doesn’t only take place because one’s conscience is awakened,” Justice Ijaz said. He added, “What will be the punishment for defection is the question.”
Naek contended that the defecting lawmaker would be disqualified only until the completion of the remaining term of the government.
Later, the court deferred the case till today.
