The Supreme Court is hearing the Article 63A interpretation review case, with a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa presiding over the proceedings.
The case revisits the interpretation of Article 63A concerning the disqualification of parliamentarians for defying party directives.
The CJP reiterated that Justice Muneeb Akhtar, who had previously written letters expressing his objections to the bench, was invited to sit, but maintained his earlier stance. Initially, Chief Justice Isa said, he had proposed including Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who declined to join both the bench and the Practice Procedure Committee, leading to the inclusion of Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan "without disturbing other benches".
The chief justice Isa remarked, "Nothing happens behind closed doors in the Supreme Court any more."
Barrister Ali Zafar, representing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), again objected to the bench’s composition. However, Chief Justice Isa asked Zafar to remain seated, stressing that arguments would be heard in the proper sequence.
"Ali Zafar, sit down, you will be heard at the appropriate time. You have no right to argue first, as the person who has filed the revision petition has the right to argue first. Your own bar's elected president is on the rostrum, at least for once adhere to democratic principles," the CJP said while addressing Barrister Ali Zafar.
Also Read: Article 63A review plea: Justice Naeem Akhtar added to bench
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Shahzad Shaukat offered his arguments regarding the background and legal questions raised in the case. He told the court that there was a presidential reference in this case as well as applications under Article 184(3). To this, the CJP questioned how both are two separate jurisdictions and how a verdict could be delivered by combining the two.
"Only an opinion can be given on a presidential reference, not a decision. Aren't the two jurisdictions different? Was there a court order at that time on the reasons for combining the two cases? Only legal questions raised by the president are answered," the CJP noted.
He added that if the opinion on the reference is not followed, the president cannot be tried for contempt. When the SCBA president reminded that the president at that time was Dr Arif Alvi, the CJP remarked that the government of the time was also a petitioner in the case as a government. "What legal questions were raised by the president?" he asked.
Shahzad Shaukat told the court the president had raised four questions in the reference and sought an opinion on the aspect of cheating under Article 63A. He added that the court had said that Article 63A could not be seen in isolation and declared that political parties were important for democracy.
"The court declared that deviation from party policy is a cancer for political parties," Shaukat recalled. The chief justice asked if the court’s previous opinion had genuinely addressed the president’s questions, to which Shaukat answered in the negative.
CJP Isa further asked if the question related to ethics in the reference was genuine. Shahzad Shaukat reminded that the court had declared the vote of a disaffected member would not be counted, adding that a question was related to the voice of conscience of a member also. "The decision sought to rewrite the constitution," the senior lawyer observed.
CJP Isa noted that in a question in the reference, the word cancer had been mentioned for defection, asking that if that word was not there, would the impact of the question be reduced.
More details to follow...
