ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the coalition government’s request to form a full bench on the deputy speaker ruling pertaining to the contentious Punjab chief minister election.
A three-judge apex court bench, comprising Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhter announced the decision on Monday after a marathon 8-hour-long hearing. The hearing of the case was adjourned till 11:30am today (Tuesday).
The court said in the verdict that it heard arguments of all parties in detail. It said in the short order that it examined the deputy speaker’s ruling on Punjab CM elections and detailed reasons for rejecting the petitions for constituting the full court will be issued later.
The bench had earlier observed that it needed more clarity to decide on whether of to form full court bench on the matter on not.
“We need more clarity on certain things to decide about the formation of full court,” remarked Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial as the apex court resumed hearing on the case after a brief interval.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan, who is part of a three-member bench, remarked that the apex court wanted to hear the matter of the deputy speaker’s controversial ruling on merit before deciding about forming the full bench.
The chief justice maintained that full court had been formed in the past in the matter of utmost importance and added that the full bench could be formed if the issue lingered on.
“We believe that the full court is only constituted when the matter is complicated,” the CJP remarked. Chief Justice Bandial said the main point of contention before the bench was that whether a party head could issue directions to his parliamentary party members or not.
The bench also allowed the counsels of PPP and PML-Q chief Chaudhry Shujaat to present their arguments in the case. PML-N’s counsel Irfan Qadir told the bench that Punjab CM Hamza Shehbaz and the coalition government wanted full bench to hear the matter.
He maintained that the apex court’s verdict on Article 63-A of the Constitution was contradictory and added that only Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had the authority to decide the defection of lawmakers.
“We have to see whether the party head could be a substitute to the parliamentary head as in this case party head directed the parliamentary party members,” the CJP remarked.
During the hearing, the CJP also commented on the anti-judiciary smear campaign, saying, “Social media looks towards perception instead of facts but we are not concerned about this.”
The chief justice told PPP’s counsel Farooq H Naik that his party through the 18th Constitutional Amendment empowered the parliamentary head and also cited an example of Britain that former PM Boris Johnson was also asked to step down by his party head in the parliament.
“The internal matters of parliament should not be brought before the court,” said Naek. To which Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked, “Was no-confidence motion [against ousted PM Imran Khan] parliament’s internal matter?”
“Back then you would say that the court has full authority but today you are taking different stance as you are standing on the other side,” Jusitce Ijaz told the PPP counsel. “The time and circumstances have changed today,” replied Naek.
Jusitce Ijaz maintained that the case before the bench is related to the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order and not constitutional.
The PPP lawyer also requested the court to adjourn the hearing till Thursday. Earlier in the day, Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on the request for the formation of a full court to take up a set of petitions moved by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Pervaiz Elahi, speaker of the Punjab Assembly, against his deputy Dost Muhammad Mazari’s rejection of 10 votes cast during the election for the office of the chief minister.
The development came hours after the ruling coalition — while reiterating its demand for a full court bench to hear all cases related to the apex court’s interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution, including that of Elahi against the election — said cases of national importance “cannot be repeatedly decided by the same three people [judges]”.
The verdict was reserved on the petitions filed by Hamza Shehbaz, the chief minister, and factions of bar associations — all seeking the formation of a full court — after it heard arguments from party lawyers.
However, at 4:00 pm, the chief justice gave a break of an hour-and-a-half on the petition of Elahi, which challenged Mazari’s ruling.
During the proceedings today, the chief justice remarked the party head “will also have to listen to the parliamentary party’s opinion”.
He recalled that a senior parliamentarian once informed the court during the hearing on the presidential reference that the party head could also be a “dictator” which is why his role had been reduced and powers were given to the parliamentary party instead.
“There are hereditary parties in Pakistan. How can a leader residing abroad issue instructions?” he argued.
