Justice Naeem replaces Justice Munib in new bench
In a major development in the Article 63(A) review case, the federal government and the Pakistan People’s Party have backed the Supreme Court Bar Association’s petition challenging the apex court’s May 2022 ruling on the defection clause.
The court, back then, had decided that the dissident members of a parliamentary party could not cast votes against their party’s directives.
The development comes as a SC larger bench, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Tuesday heard the review petition. The newly formed bench comprises Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
The existing bench was constituted after Justice Munib Akhtar, on Monday, expressed unavailability from being part of the bench — the reasons for which the latter communicated to the apex court’s registrar in multiple letters.
At the onset of the hearing, the CJP addressed the bench formation issue and revealed that Justice Munib retained his stance regarding his presence on the bench.
On the issue of the judges’ committee, the chief justice said that he recommended including Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and that the puisne judge’s office was office contacted in this regard.
However, owing to Justice Mansoor’s refusal, the CJP said that they were left with no option but to include Justice Afghan in the bench.
Appearing before the court, SCBA President Shahzad Shaukat objected to the 2022 verdict saying that there was a presidential reference and petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
“How can the judgment be given by combining both? Only an opinion can be given on a presidential reference and not a decision,” responded CJP Isa.
Furthermore, the senior lawyer also argued that the apex court’s 2022 verdict was an attempt to re-write the constitution.
To this, the chief justice remarked: “When the constitution is clear, how can [one] add something to it.”
In response to the top judge’s question whether the said judgement provisioned immediate disqualification of a lawmaker if he votes against party lines, the additional attorney general replied in the negative.
“No, nothing like that has been said in the judgement,” the AAGP noted.
When asked who opposed and supported the SCBA’s review plea, Pakistan Thereek-e-Insaf’s Barrister Ali Zafar said that he was against the petition, whereas the federal government and the PPP said that they supported the review request.
PPP’s lawyer Farooq H Naek said: “The Constitution does not have any provision against counting of [lawmakers’] vote[s].”
After hearing the arguments, the chief justice said the court would hear the remaining lawyers tomorrow and adjourned the hearing till Wednesday.
