ISLAMABAD - Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Monday said that the apex court had taken suo moto notice of the parliamentary crisis last month after consultations were held between 12 SC judges and all of whom were agreed that it was a “constitutional matter.”
He said this while a five-member bench, headed by the CJP was hearing the Presidential Reference for interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution and Supreme Court Bar Association petition. The bench on the PTI chairman’s petition also issued notices to the respondents.
Former prime minister and Chairman PTI Imran Khan on April 14 filed a petition under Article 184 of the Constitution and cited Election Commission of Pakistan, Speaker National Assembly, Secretary Cabinet Division, Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice as respondents.
Deputy Speaker National Assembly Qasim Suri on April 3 refused to accept a motion for debate on no confidence against the then PM Imran Khan terming it a violation of the Constitution. Soon after that Imran Khan in a brief address to the nation, said he had advised President Arif Alvi to dissolve the National Assembly and call for fresh elections. The Chief Justice told Babar Awan Advocate, who was representing PTI Chairman Imran Khan, that the court is not dealing with the individual cases which involve the facts. He added that they are not concerned about 24 MNAs and the 26 MPAs.
He inquired from the PTI that why its party did not approach the apex court against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) when it took no action against the Senators as per the opinion of the Supreme Court on Presidential Reference on the Senate Election. He said that the Supreme Court jurisdiction is not invoked by writing letter or protest rallies.
The CJ remarked that they are not executive authority and the judgment is delivered on post-facto events and do not take anticipatory action. He added that they have curtailed the suo moto jurisdiction and have settled principle to use this power. The Chief Justice further said that the suo moto is taken with good faith, as suo moto on Reko Diq was taken on basis of huge evidence. He said that according to Makhdoom Ali Khan the executive did not furnish this evidence to the Arbitrator therefore the decision came against Pakistan.
Justice Bandial said that they are very careful in taking suo moto. He asked Babar Awan do not confuse things that the court has not taken suo moto on so and so case. He said that the court took suo moto on Steel Mills because the executive failed to perform its duty.
Five-member bench of apex court hears Presidential Reference for interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution, SCBA petition
The Chief Justice remarked that if in a criminal case the prosecution does not provide evidence against an accused then would the court to acquit him due to no evidence. He asked Babar Awan to focus on the question raised in the Presidential Reference ie what is the purpose of Article 63A, what other solution are available without changing the Constitution.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said to the counsel that you are saying it was the ECP laxity as it took no action as per the Supreme Court opinion in Reference on Senate Election. He said that if the Supreme Court judgment is not implemented then do not blame the courts. “When you (executive) are wrong then must admit. We are not condemning you or your client,” the judge further told Babar Awan.
The counsel said that what about the ‘Gallery wala election’, a reference to the voting for CM Hamza Shahbaz in the Punjab Assembly. Justice Ijaz responded as you (PTI) and other (PML) party would ultimately come before the Supreme Court, therefore do not like to come on this issue. He said that it does not suit to anyone to disparage the court.
Babar Awan argued that remarks were passed against the President of Pakistan, but he remained quite. The Chief Justice said that if he (President) wants remedy then he can approach the Court, as we respect and have to defend the Constitution and the constitutional institutions.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said that the lawyers in the political parties should tell the party leaders about the constitution.
Earlier, Babar Awan raised the preliminary questions pertaining to the effect of the Article 63A provision by juxtaposition with the Article 62, 63, 64 and the Preamble of the Constitution.
Justice Bandial said that they have to interpret the Constitution not only for the present case but for future generation. He asked Babar Awan to assist that does the Constitution condone such action which have been described in Article 63 of the Constitution or does it curtail the action and also provide for consequences.
At the conclusion of the proceeding, Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman informed the court that the summary has been sent to the President for the appointment of Ashtar Ausaf as new Attorney General for Pakistan.
PML-N lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan sought a delay in the hearing as he would return to Pakistan on May 15, but the bench asked him to return early as the case could not be delayed for that long.
The court said that it will also listen to Azhar Siddique, the PTI counsel, after Babar Awan. Awan urged the court to read articles 62 and 63 together. The PTI leader said that he would assist the court in the constitutional debate regarding the case. The additional attorney general said that the attorney general also wanted to present his arguments in the case.
During the hearing, Justice Mandokhel said that the Constitution did not lay down the period of disqualification as a result of the violation of Article 63-A but the court could specify that. Babar Awan said that the presidential reference was filed against 26 MNAs and 24 MPAs who allegedly switched loyalties.
Later, the bench adjourned the hearing till Tuesday (today).
He said this while a five-member bench, headed by the CJP was hearing the Presidential Reference for interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution and Supreme Court Bar Association petition. The bench on the PTI chairman’s petition also issued notices to the respondents.
Former prime minister and Chairman PTI Imran Khan on April 14 filed a petition under Article 184 of the Constitution and cited Election Commission of Pakistan, Speaker National Assembly, Secretary Cabinet Division, Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice as respondents.
Deputy Speaker National Assembly Qasim Suri on April 3 refused to accept a motion for debate on no confidence against the then PM Imran Khan terming it a violation of the Constitution. Soon after that Imran Khan in a brief address to the nation, said he had advised President Arif Alvi to dissolve the National Assembly and call for fresh elections. The Chief Justice told Babar Awan Advocate, who was representing PTI Chairman Imran Khan, that the court is not dealing with the individual cases which involve the facts. He added that they are not concerned about 24 MNAs and the 26 MPAs.
He inquired from the PTI that why its party did not approach the apex court against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) when it took no action against the Senators as per the opinion of the Supreme Court on Presidential Reference on the Senate Election. He said that the Supreme Court jurisdiction is not invoked by writing letter or protest rallies.
The CJ remarked that they are not executive authority and the judgment is delivered on post-facto events and do not take anticipatory action. He added that they have curtailed the suo moto jurisdiction and have settled principle to use this power. The Chief Justice further said that the suo moto is taken with good faith, as suo moto on Reko Diq was taken on basis of huge evidence. He said that according to Makhdoom Ali Khan the executive did not furnish this evidence to the Arbitrator therefore the decision came against Pakistan.
Justice Bandial said that they are very careful in taking suo moto. He asked Babar Awan do not confuse things that the court has not taken suo moto on so and so case. He said that the court took suo moto on Steel Mills because the executive failed to perform its duty.
Five-member bench of apex court hears Presidential Reference for interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution, SCBA petition
The Chief Justice remarked that if in a criminal case the prosecution does not provide evidence against an accused then would the court to acquit him due to no evidence. He asked Babar Awan to focus on the question raised in the Presidential Reference ie what is the purpose of Article 63A, what other solution are available without changing the Constitution.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said to the counsel that you are saying it was the ECP laxity as it took no action as per the Supreme Court opinion in Reference on Senate Election. He said that if the Supreme Court judgment is not implemented then do not blame the courts. “When you (executive) are wrong then must admit. We are not condemning you or your client,” the judge further told Babar Awan.
The counsel said that what about the ‘Gallery wala election’, a reference to the voting for CM Hamza Shahbaz in the Punjab Assembly. Justice Ijaz responded as you (PTI) and other (PML) party would ultimately come before the Supreme Court, therefore do not like to come on this issue. He said that it does not suit to anyone to disparage the court.
Babar Awan argued that remarks were passed against the President of Pakistan, but he remained quite. The Chief Justice said that if he (President) wants remedy then he can approach the Court, as we respect and have to defend the Constitution and the constitutional institutions.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said that the lawyers in the political parties should tell the party leaders about the constitution.
Earlier, Babar Awan raised the preliminary questions pertaining to the effect of the Article 63A provision by juxtaposition with the Article 62, 63, 64 and the Preamble of the Constitution.
Justice Bandial said that they have to interpret the Constitution not only for the present case but for future generation. He asked Babar Awan to assist that does the Constitution condone such action which have been described in Article 63 of the Constitution or does it curtail the action and also provide for consequences.
At the conclusion of the proceeding, Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman informed the court that the summary has been sent to the President for the appointment of Ashtar Ausaf as new Attorney General for Pakistan.
PML-N lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan sought a delay in the hearing as he would return to Pakistan on May 15, but the bench asked him to return early as the case could not be delayed for that long.
The court said that it will also listen to Azhar Siddique, the PTI counsel, after Babar Awan. Awan urged the court to read articles 62 and 63 together. The PTI leader said that he would assist the court in the constitutional debate regarding the case. The additional attorney general said that the attorney general also wanted to present his arguments in the case.
During the hearing, Justice Mandokhel said that the Constitution did not lay down the period of disqualification as a result of the violation of Article 63-A but the court could specify that. Babar Awan said that the presidential reference was filed against 26 MNAs and 24 MPAs who allegedly switched loyalties.
Later, the bench adjourned the hearing till Tuesday (today).
