Nowhere in the constitution is it clear whether to remain loyal to the party or not, Chief Justice

 ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Omar Ata Bandial has said that does any member declare that the party will abide by discipline? Nowhere in the constitution is it clear whether to remain loyal to the party or not.

According to Express News, a five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial is hearing the case on the presidential reference regarding the interpretation of Article 63A. The bench comprises Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.

During the hearing, the Attorney General argued that there are reserved seats for women and minorities in Parliament. Members of reserved seats would not have voted for the people. Members of reserved seats were also present in Sindh House. Are found on the list.

Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial said that betrayal of trust is a great sin, betrayal has a very severe punishment in the Qur'an and those who break trust are called traitors. Do you think those who do not vote for the party betray? Does any member declare that the party will abide by discipline, nowhere in the constitution is it clear whether to remain loyal to the party or not.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan asked whether the member declares in the membership form that he will abide by the discipline. If there is such an assurance in the party membership then the violation would be treason.

Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that the Prime Minister has taken the oath of office. Can any member express no confidence in the Prime Minister?

The Attorney General said that the party ticket is a certificate which bears the symbol of election. On this, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that voters seal the election symbol not in anyone's name, those contesting elections on party symbol are bound by party discipline.

The Attorney General said that political parties still exist in the name of big leaders in the subcontinent, Muslim League and Congress are parties of big leaders. If you do not agree, you can resign and party disagreement does not mean to go against the government. Raza Rabbani voted in favor of military courts under party discipline. It is certain that Raza Rabbani did not vote for fear of disqualification. ۔

Justice Mazhar Alam asked why those who disagree with the party policy should resign. The Attorney General replied that a person contesting an election on a party ticket is also bound by the discipline of the party. On this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that the Constitution of Pakistan gives every person the right to freely express his views, so should there be lifelong disqualification on expression of views?

The Attorney General said that the members of the Assembly could not vote freely only on four occasions, as Advocate General lived in the Sindh House, there was no device in the Sindh House to awaken the conscience.

Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandial said that leaving one's people for personal gain is disloyalty. If there is democracy within the party then Article 63A is not required. Found

Justice Jamal Mandokhel said that it would not be appropriate for the President to consult the parliamentary parties, would it not be appropriate to consult the political parties before the court? The constitution could have been amended with the help of parliamentary parties. On this the Attorney General said that Ghulam Ishaq Khan used to call everyone in this way.

Justice Mazhar Alam said that no one has deviated so far. He brought a reference on which the Attorney General said that the purpose is to prevent the crime from happening. Justice Mazhar said that how can punishment be given before committing a crime? On which the Attorney General said that the court has come to clarify the law.

The Chief Justice inquired that the Attorney General has to tell you when the member will be disqualified for life. The Attorney General said that if there is a crime, the law should be clear for sentencing, to which Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that it is the job of this Supreme Court to interpret the constitution.

The Attorney General said that the government had come to the court only on the draft of the Hasba Bill, there was an objection in the Hasba Bill reference that the law was not made, the Supreme Court had rejected the objection of not approving the bill.

The Chief Justice said that 62 One F speaks of qualification, 62 One F does not speak of disqualification, the people of the ruling party woke up as soon as they went to Sindh House. Justice Jamal Khan said that if the Prime Minister takes a decision against the country, can't a member oppose it? On which the Attorney General said that a member can disassociate himself from the party if he acts against the country.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that a person who disagrees with the party can take the mandate again? The court is to determine the outcome of the confession under Article 63A. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked whether the court could use judicial powers in the reference.

The Attorney General presented the parliamentary debate on the 18th Amendment in the court and said that the court has interpreted Article 62-1F. To do?

Justice Jamal asked whether the court could add any full stop in the constitution. The Attorney General said that he would prove the direct connection between Articles 62 and 63. Justice Ijaz said that no article of the constitution can be read separately. Sixty-two and sixty-three are read together. Horse trading has been declared a cancer in the parliamentary debate. Article to the court Determining the consequences of deviation under 63A.

Justice Jamal Khan said that there is a forum of the Election Commission against those who deviate from the party, on which the Attorney General said that stealing to satisfy one's hunger is also a crime. Justice Jamal said that what will happen if someone goes with the thief? What is the problem with the President? Who is asking for feedback? What is the material in front of the President to ask questions? So the Attorney General said that the court is bound to give an opinion on the presidential reference.

Justice Ijaz said that the President has asked for the interpretation of the constitution and we cannot go beyond the interpretation and it is possible to send back the reference.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that deviation from Article 63A will be subject to Article 62 One F? Article 63A justifies the vacancy. Justice Jamal Khan asked what would happen if a member resigned after casting his vote?

The Attorney General said that a member in India had resigned by voting against the party, Indian courts had declared the resigned member a defector, no one can be encouraged to deviate from the party.

The Chief Justice asked what was feared while drafting the Election Act 2017? Parliament did not write more than D-set. The Attorney General said that even Parliament did not disqualify him for life under Article 62F.

The Chief Justice said that the role of the court is included in Article 62F, the court giving the declaration can also be an election tribunal, is the Election Commission a court? The Attorney General said that in my view the Election Commission is not a court on which the Chief Justice asked that if the Election Commission is not a court then who will give the declaration?

Justice Jamal said that if all parties agree then the constitution should be amended on which the Attorney General said that the constitution speaks not through itself but through the courts, only the court can interpret the constitution correctly.

The Chief Justice said that disqualification under Article 63A could also be added through legislation. Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that if the votes were not counted then there would be no need to go in another boat. Justice Jamal asked whether Article 63A does not restrict freedom of expression. So the Attorney General said that even section 302 does not prevent murder but one has to go to jail.

Justice Mandokhel said that the killings were taking place in spite of the sentence of 302. Can a member express his opinion under Article 63A? If a member violates the party direction, the constitutional consequences will be borne.

The Attorney General said that no one has been disqualified under Article 63A till date, it is not necessary to prove taking money for violation of Article 63A.

Later, the hearing on the presidential reference was adjourned till one o'clock on Monday.