Court needs more legal clarification regarding formation of a full bench, CJP said.
Punjab CM election: SC rejects ruling allies request seeking full court formation. Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) on Monday rejected coalition parties’ request to form a full court bench related to the recently held Punjab chief minister’s re-election case.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial said that the court needs more legal clarification regarding the formation of a full bench to issue a verdict on the case.
The CJP also said that he was unsure whether the decision on the said ruling will be made today.
Earlier in the day, the SC had reserved the verdict on the petitions filed by Chief Minister Punjab Hamza Shahbaz and other bar associations — seeking the formation of a full court for the hearing of the case — after it heard arguments from party lawyers.
More From FactFile: IG Islamabad submits PTI Red Zone Breach’s report to Supreme Court
However, the CJP gave a break of an hour-and-a-half on the petition of Elahi, which challenged Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Muhammad Mazari’s ruling in the CM elections.
Last week, the top court asked CM Punjab to stay “trustee” chief minister till Monday (today) and limited his powers, noting that if he appoints someone against merit, it will be considered null and void.
Today’s hearing
After the hearing resumed, Advocate Latif Afridi appeared on behalf of the bar councils and reiterated their demand that the full court hears the matter.
At this, CJP Bandial said that he was honoured that the former SCBA chief had put the matter before him, but noted that the court would decide after hearing all parties in the case.
CJP Bandial said that he did not want to issue a one-sided order and neither would he arrive at a decision under the advice of 10 former presidents.
“We need to hear the other side of the story as well,” he said. At this, Afridi said that a full bench should be constituted and the available judges should be included.
Moving on, PPP lawyer Farooq H Naik said that he has requested to become a party in the case, at which the CJP told him that let the initial matters be wrapped up first.
“We will hear you, but let the proceedings move in line with the order. Please sit, I hope that your seat will be vacant,” the CJP told Naik.
In response, Naik told him that “seats come and go”.
During the proceedings, SCBA President Ahsan Bhoon said that he could not “imagine” pressurising the court, but noted that the review petition on Article 63A should be heard.
“What’s the hurry Bhoon Sahab, let us hear this case first,” CJP said.
Barrister Ali Zafar — who is representing Elahi in the case — said that he has also remained the president of the bar. “The bar presidents should not be involved in such matters.”
Deputy Speaker Mazari’s lawyer, Irfan Qadir, too, when he came to the rostrum, said that since there are several confusions over the matter, a full bench should hear the case.
Then, Mazari’s counsel read out the court’s order issued on July 23. At this, the CJP asked the lawyer how the deputy speaker concluded that the court’s order on Article 63 (A) gives the impression that it speaks about the party head.
“This question is for you [and] that is why a special bench has been formed. The question here is what happens when the party head and the parliamentary party’s decisions differ?”
Qadir said that it was not his job to define what questions arise here, but it was the court’s task. At this, the CJP asked him to read out Article 63 (A).
The CJP then said that the article mentions the party head and the parliamentary party.
“I am extremely confused as to what the question is here? I cannot understand what’s the question?” he asked.
The CJP then said that maybe the lawyer was having trouble hearing the judges and warned him that he would be asked to sit at his seat if he cuts off any judge while they are speaking.
Justice Ahsan asked if the same person can issue declarations and instruct a parliamentary party at the same time. At this, Qadir said that the political parties’ rights have been mentioned in the constitution.
Justice Akhtar then said that the deputy speaker issued the directions — during the Punjab CM election on July 22 — under the SC’s ruling in the Article 63(A) case.
“There is no confusion in this case anymore, let someone else speak now,” Justice Akhtar added.
