Barrister Ali Zafar presents arguments on behalf of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), but later objectes to formation of bench and refuses to participate in proceedings.
ISLAMABAD: (UrduPoint/Pakistan Point News-Oct 3rd, 2024) The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday nullified the decision related to the interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution.
A five-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, heard the review appeals regarding the interpretation of Article 63-A.
Barrister Ali Zafar presented arguments on behalf of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), but later objected to the formation of the bench and refused to participate in the proceedings.
On behalf of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Farooq H. Naek presented arguments.
While announcing the verdict on the review appeal, the Chief Justice said that the Supreme Court Bar Association’s appeal is unanimously accepted, and a detailed decision would be issued later.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa mentioned that Justice Mazhar Alam had issued a dissenting note on July 30 regarding the interpretation of Article 63-A, while the majority of the bench issued the detailed decision on October 14.
He added that Justice Mazhar Alam was aware of his responsibilities.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that the majority decision mentioned a distinction between casting a vote and counting a vote, questioning whether this distinction is explicitly written in the Constitution.
The Additional Attorney General informed the court that the decision on Article 63-A is full of contradictions, stating that, on one hand, it was said that voting is a fundamental right, while at the same time, this right was abolished by party directives.
Farooq H. Naek, the lawyer for PPP, referred to the Hasba Bill case, stating that the opinion on the reference is binding on the one who sought it.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa asked whether any action could be taken if the President did not act on the opinion. Naek responded that the court could not take action against the President.
Farooq H. Naek also cited the case of PTI’s Ayesha Gulalai regarding the dissident member, upon which the Chief Justice commented, “You got the name wrong; you might have to apologize publicly.”
Justice Jamal Mandokhail added that “Gulalai” is a Pashto word, suggesting that the meaning of the word should be considered as well.
Farooq H. Naek pointed out that the minority judgment in the 63-A case was issued first.
The Supreme Court nullified the decision on the review case regarding Article 63-A and unanimously accepted the review petitions.
Background of the Case on the Interpretation of Article 63-A
In 2022, during the no-confidence motion against then-Prime Minister Imran Khan, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) raised concerns.
During this period, then-President Arif Alvi sent a reference to the Supreme Court, seeking an interpretation of Article 63-A.
The reference asked whether the vote of a dissident member would not be counted and whether the disqualification period for such a member should be made lifelong, similar to Article 62(1)(f), since Article 63-A does not specify the duration of disqualification.
At the time, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial combined the petitions of the Supreme Court Bar and the President of Pakistan, ruling that the vote of a dissident member would not be counted.
