Supreme Court Withdraws Article 63A Interpretation After Review Process
The Supreme Court has unanimously accepted a review petition challenging its previous interpretation of Article 63A and overturned its earlier ruling on the constitutional article.
“The 2022 majority ruling concerning Article 63A has been annulled,” declared the court.
Earlier, during the session, Imran Khan’s lawyer, Ali Zafar, argued that the government was planning constitutional amendments, sparking concerns about potential approval of horse-trading.
A five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and including Justices Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Mazhar Alam Miankhel, presided over the case.
At the beginning of the hearing, Ali Zafar conveyed that his client, Imran Khan, wished to address the court personally through a video link. However, when asked by the Chief Justice to proceed with his arguments, Zafar declined, insisting that Khan should first make his submissions.
Zafar explained that Khan had objections to the composition of the bench, and if he wasn’t allowed to appear virtually, he had other points to raise. The Chief Justice reminded Zafar that, as a lawyer, he also had an obligation to the court, not just his client.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel noted that lawyers must adhere to the law, regardless of their client’s wishes. Zafar replied that Khan had instructed him to withdraw if certain conditions weren’t met, suggesting the government was attempting to introduce constitutional amendments. The Chief Justice accused Zafar of making political statements, seemingly intended to grab headlines.
PTI Boycotts Court Proceedings
Zafar claimed that the Article 63A decision helped prevent horse-trading. Justice Mandokhel clarified that the court’s previous stance was an opinion, not a ruling. Following a disagreement about the bench’s composition, Zafar announced PTI’s boycott of the proceedings.
Supreme Court Appoints Zafar as Judicial Assistant
After the boycott, the court appointed Ali Zafar as a judicial assistant. Zafar then argued that a review petition cannot be filed against the court’s advisory opinion, asserting that only the president could seek further clarification. CJP Isa reminded him that PTI had also submitted an application in this matter.
In further exchanges, CJP Isa questioned whether the word “opinion” or “decision” was used in the original judgment. Zafar said it was up to the court to decide, implying that he supported replacing “judgment” with “opinion.”
Justice Mandokhel pointed out that no previous objections had been raised when he and Justice Miankhel served on the earlier bench. Zafar clarified that the issue wasn’t personal but related to the bench’s overall composition.
CJP Isa inquired if judges could oppose constitutional provisions after taking an oath, highlighting that dictators often claim they will purge corrupt politicians while ironically being supported by many.
Zafar argued that advancing fundamental rights was not the same as rewriting the Constitution and cited the right to form political parties as an example of constitutional interpretation.
The CJP then questioned how a single judge could determine defection when such authority lies with a parliamentary party leader. Justice Mandokhel added that voting is the right of individual members, not political parties.
The PPP’s lawyer, Farooq H. Naik, mentioned that party elections are governed by the Elections Act, with the party leader making final decisions.
In his rebuttal, Zafar said parliamentary parties instruct members on voting matters and can request disqualification for defiance. CJP Isa remarked that dissenting members could resign if they disagreed with party policies.
Follow us on our social media platforms here: Twitter WHATSAPP CHANNEL FACEBOOK PAGE
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.