- Advocate Tayyab Mustafain Kazmi tells court 500 PTI lawyers ready to prevent ruling against party
- Barrister Ali Zafar argues PTI was not given a prior notice, but Chief Justice rejected the claim as baseless
ISLAMABAD: Tensions flared in the Supreme Court during hearing of the Article 63A verdict review petition when PTI lawyer threatened the five-member larger bench while Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa rejected objections against the bench formed to hear the review petition.
The incident occurred when one of the PTI’s counsels, Tayyab Mustafain Kazmi, told the court that 500 PTI lawyers were standing outside, ready to prevent any ruling against the party.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, presiding over the bench, swiftly responded by calling for police to maintain order.
He firmly rejected the attempt to intimidate the court, stating, “Do you want institutions to be run through threats? My only fault is that I have always shown patience.”
The hearing, which was part of the review petition on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 63A, saw heightened emotions as Kazmi criticised the bench’s legality and issued strong remarks against the judiciary.
Chief Justice Isa remained resolute despite his warnings, asserting that the court would not tolerate threats or disrespect.
“You cannot run the courts through intimidation. We will continue with the proceedings, no matter how much opposition we face,” the Chief Justice added, signalling that the judiciary would uphold its independence.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, also part of the bench, expressed concern over the growing trend of targeting judges when decisions do not favour specific parties.
“This behaviour is unacceptable. We are here for the integrity of the institution, not for money or power. The judiciary must remain independent,” he said.
Kazmi’s outburst led to a temporary adjournment, and he eventually left the
On the other hand, the Chief Justice Isa rejected PTI’s objections as baseless against the bench formed to hear the review petition.
The objections were raised during the case’s hearing on Wednesday, where the PTI argued that the bench had been constituted improperly, but the Chief Justice firmly dismissed these claims.
PTI’s legal counsel, Barrister Ali Zafar, argued that the bench’s formation did not follow proper legal procedures and that the party had not been notified adequately in advance about the hearing.
Zafar contended that this lack of notice compromised the fairness of the proceedings and demanded that the bench be reconstituted according to legal norms.
Chief Justice Isa swiftly rejected PTI’s objections as baseless.
He clarified that the bench’s formation was in full compliance with judicial procedures, stating, “We all agreed as a court to reject the objections raised against the bench’s legality.”
The Chief Justice reiterated that the decision was unanimous among the judges.
The hearing turned tense when PTI lawyer Tayyab Mustafain Kazmi threatened the court by claiming that hundreds of PTI lawyers were prepared to prevent an unfavourable ruling.
Chief Justice Isa responded sternly, questioning whether Kazmi expected the country’s institutions to be governed by threats. “We will continue with these proceedings regardless of the pressure,” the Chief Justice stated, making it clear that the judiciary operates independently.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail added that there is a worrying trend of criticising the judiciary when rulings do not favour certain political parties.
“Judges are not here to be influenced by threats or public pressure,” he remarked, underscoring the importance of judicial independence in Pakistan’s democracy.
Despite the heated exchanges, Chief Justice Isa instructed Barrister Ali Zafar to proceed with his arguments.
PTI’s objection to the bench formation was dismissed, and the hearing continued.
The court reaffirmed that the judiciary would not be influenced by external pressures and would continue its work impartially.
The case revolves around PTI’s review of the Supreme Court’s earlier interpretation of Article 63A, which deals with disqualifying lawmakers who defy party policies.
The decision on this matter holds significant implications for political discipline within Pakistan’s party system, making the ongoing case a focal point of political interest.
