Muristek
ISLAMABAD: Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan on Monday resumed arguments over presidential reference on interpretation of Article 63 (A) of the Constitution before the Supreme Court’s larger bench, ARY News reported.
The court directed the Attorney General to complete his arguments within one hour tomorrow when the hearing adjourned today.
The five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial heard the arguments of the attorney general with regard to the questions asked in the presidential reference.
“It has been questioned how can the court read, which is not written in the constitution,” Attorney General said. “I want to refer the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision, the court demanded the affidavit from all candidates along with nomination papers”. “The affidavit was not in the law but demanded on the court order,” AGP said. “The court had declared nomination papers incomplete without the statement on oath,” he argued.
“The court said that the affidavits were taken for the sake of transparency in the electoral process” AGP said.
“Do you think something lacking in Article 63 (A)?” Justice Jamal Mandokhel asked. “Article 63 (A) can not be read separately,” AGP said.
“The court has discussed repute and sanctity of elections in the judicial verdict,” CJP Bandial said.
Attorney General argued, ” those winning election on the party ticket are bound to the party’s discipline.” “If someone could not want to be with the party, have option to resign,” he said. “A member voting against the party’s policy should be disqualified for life,” he said.
“How can Article 63 (A) be joined with Article 62 (F),” Justice Ijazul Ahsan questioned. “Don’t you think it necessary to prove corrupt practice at some forum,” Justice Ahsan further asked. Article 62 (F) could be applied after proof of taking bribe,” he said.
“The violation of Article 63 (A) is dishonesty and 62 (F) will be applied over legal dishonesty,” AGP argued. ” A deviant member if breaking trust of someone, who will be subjected to the dishonesty,” Justice Ahsan asked. “Firstly the people of the constituency, a voter could not take back vote after casting it,” Attorney general said.
“If there is any punishment after resignation,” Justice Mandokhel asked. “No one want to resign, it is the problem,” state lawyer said. “Isn’t vacation of the seat is sufficient in result of 63 (A),” Justice Mandokhel further questioned.
“Deviation from the party position is itself a suspicious act,” Justice Ahsan remarked.
“There are consequences for violation of the party policy,” CJP Bandial observed. “The membership will be cancelled under Article 63 (A),” CJP further said. “You want to get the disqualification period fixed,” he further said. “For Article 62-(1-F) court decision is necessary. The disqualification period under Article 63 is two to five years. This disqualification comes to end forthwith after return of the loan,” Justice Bandial observed.
“Your reference of the decision is related to before the election, how a law related with prior election situation can be applied after it,” Justice Muneeb Akhtar questioned. ” The electoral rules have not been supreme to the constitution,” AGP replied.
“Let the election commission decide after declaration from the party’s head,” Justice Mandokhel said.
“The procedure has been clear, what than we want. It might be awakening of conscience of someone. The matter will be tackled when the election commission’s decision will come to the supreme court,” Justice Jamal Khan said.
“No question about the procedure asked in the reference,” Khalid Jawed said. “The question is related with the period of disqualification and counting of the vote,” AGP said.
“What will be the basis for determination of disqualification,” Justice Miankhel asked.
“Hopefully your arguments will complete today,” Chief Justice asked the Attorney General. “Perhaps today but more time could likely to be required,” AGP replied.
“If the party head could stop a punitive action after recommendation of the parliamentary party,” Justice Ahsan asked. “The party chief could not give declaration to favorite persons,”AGP said. “It will be a political decision to be taken by the party head,” he further said.
“Actual issue is the stability of political system,” Justice Muneeb said.
“If all political parties want life time disqualification over Article 63 (A),” Justice Mandokhel questioned. “No referendum held before the reference,” AGP said. “All sides want life time disqualification,” he further said.
“The decision of disqualification period should be left to the parliament,” Justice Jamal Khan remarked.
“The deviant members and the prime minister will both go to home if the no-trust move succeed,” chief justice said. “The majority will also end if the members of the ruling party will resign. In that case the prime minister will have to take the vote of confidence,” CJP Bandial observed.
“People could express their opinion only with vote. The court should interpret keeping the people in view,” AGP said.
“If the people dislike a deviant member, they will not vote him again,” Justice Jamal said. “Divorce is permissible in Islam,” Justice Mandokhel said.
“Presidential reference is important as well as interesting, we have to see what is good for the democracy,” Chief Justice said.
The court directed the Attorney General to complete his arguments within one hour tomorrow and adjourned further hearing on the presidential reference till tomorrow.