The Supreme Court bench hearing the petition on contentious Punjab chief minister election observed on Monday that further clarity was required to reach a decision on whether to form a full bench on the matter or 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.
Earlier the bench had reserved its judgement on the formation of a full bench while hearing a petition by Punjab Assembly Speaker Chaudhry Pervez Elahi against the reelection of Hamza Shahbaz as the chief minister of Punjab. Elahi was also the candidate for the chief minister’s slot.
Elahi secured 186 votes against 179 votes of PML-N's Hamza Shehbaz. However, Deputy Speaker Sardar Dost Muhammad Mazari rejected 10 votes of the PML-Q lawmakers on the basis of a letter from party chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, who said that his party did not support Elahi.
The reserved decision is expected to be announced at 5:30pm today.
Ex-SCBA President requests Full Bench Review
Former Supreme Court Bar (SCBA) President Latif Afridi requested the court today to consider the Article 63-A revision petitions that are currently pending and asked for “a full court” to be formed “to avoid a constitutional crisis”.
“The crisis is deepening and the system is at stake,” said Latif Afridi as he urged the court to consider hearing all pending petitions relating to Article 63A under a full bench.
Upon this, the court asked what the “legal requests for the full court” were.
“We have understood the point you are trying to raise,” Justice Munib Akhtar commented as he told Akhtar to “give the other lawyer a chance”.
Party leader vs Parliamentary Party
Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer Mansoor Awan began his arguments today by imploring the court that “votes cast against party policy are to be rejected” was the main point under consideration.
“Party directives and declaration are two different things,” said Justice Ijazul Ahsan and questioned if the "party leader can be the leader of a parliamentary party”.
The judge observed that “the deputy speaker said that according to the SC decision, the party leader gives direction”.
“According to the SC decision, the role of the party chief is to give direction to the party,” argued lawyer Mansoor Awan, and added that “Article 63A was added to the Constitution by the 14th Amendment further elaborated by the 18th Amendment”.
He also cited a ruling made by an 8-member bench under Justice Azmat Saeed as he argued that “the party leader takes all the decisions”.
Upon this Justice Ijazul Ahsan questioned, “Can the party declaration and directives to the parliamentary party come from the same person?”. “There are two different rules regarding voting in party policy” he observed, “before the 18th Amendment, Article 63A mentioned party leader’s directives, after the 18th Amendment, the party leader was replaced by the parliamentary party”.
“Earlier there was ambiguity on the powers of the parliamentary party and party chief,” stated Justice Munib Akhtar. However, he said, “after the amendment, Article 63A empowers the parliamentary party to give directives”.
Lawyer Mansoor Awan said that “the heads of four political parties are not part of the parliamentary party”, giving the example of JUI-F, he said that the party was “named after” its chief, but he was still “not part of the parliamentary party”.
“The party head is answerable to the people, not the parliamentary party,” he argued.
“The party head’s role is very important,” observed Justice Ijazul Ahsan, as he added that “the party leader decides to send a reference against defecting members”.
However, he also said that “the parliamentary party will give instructions on who to vote for and the reference will be given by the [party] head”.
“A political party is actually the parliamentary party,” he observed, “whoever the people elect to the assembly has the mandate”.
Defecting lawmakers 'a separate issue'
Justice Ijazul Ahsan further observed that the facts of the "dissident members [case] and the facts of this case are different".
“We did not get any evidence or instructions for the position of the defecting members,” he added.
The judge said that “here the issue is different. All 10 members cast their votes. No member voted for the other side. All of them voted for the same side. Out of the 10 members, not a single one said that the parliamentary party did not meet”.
In the case of the “PTI's defecting members, Imran Khan had issued directives” but the lawmakers had claimed that they “did not receive a show-cause notice” stated Justice Ahsan.
“This was the matter in the defecting lawmaker’s appeals,” said the judge.
The chief justice also added that “in the appeals, it is not the position of the dissenting members that the instructions were not received”.
Hamza moves court to form full bench
PML-N leader Hamza Shahbaz filed a petition in the Supreme Court to form a full bench on Elahi’s petition and also requested the court to hear the appeal for revision of Article 63A.
In his petition, Hamza requested the court to hear the appeals of the PTI' 'deviant' members against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) decision along with hearing Elahi’s plea.
Read: ‘Trustee CM’ inducts 37-strong Punjab cabinet
“July 22 ruling of the deputy speaker is correct,” he maintained, adding that the PTI’s dissident lawmakers' appeals are still pending against the decision of the electoral watchdog, wherein the ECP had disqualified 25 lawmakers who had not voted in line with the party’s instructions during the April 16 election of the provincial chief executive.
According to the petition, the situation would be “radically different” if the apex court upholds the deviant members' appeals, and the votes given by the 25 deviant members are considered.
Hamza stated that since the ECP upheld Imran Khan's letter of instructions against deviant members, Chaudhry Shujaat's letter to his MPAs must also be considered “under the Constitution and the law”.
Heavy police deployment
Meanwhile, the SC implemented a ban on the entry of political leaders citing “security concerns” due to a “crowd” gathering in the court.
Sources told the Express Tribune that passes that had previously been issued to political parties were also cancelled and only parties to the case and their legal counsel were allowed to enter the court
A large number of police officials were deployed at the apex court as tensions remained high in anticipation of the SC hearing.
Large numbers of Rangers, FC and police personnel were seen on the court premises.
Diversion placed for both sides of traffic from Zulfiqar Chowk to G-9 Signal of Rohtas Road.
Alternatively, G-9 Service Road can be used. https://t.co/sBUwbBmX7q
— Islamabad Police (@ICT_Police) July 25, 2022
Road blockages and diversions were also placed along Zulfiqar Chowk to Rohtas Road.
سپریم کورٹ میں اہم سماعت۔
فریقین کے رہنماؤں کو سپریم کورٹ انتظامیہ کی اجازت سے کورٹ روم/سپریم کورٹ میں داخلہ دیا جائے گا۔سپریم کورٹ میں داخلے کےلیے پارٹی رہنماؤں کی جانب سےلسٹیں مہیا کی گئی ہیں۔ریڈ زون بشمول سپریم کورٹ کے اردگرد ہرگز کسی جلسے ، جلوس اور اجتماع کی اجازت نہیں۔ 1/2
— Islamabad Police (@ICT_Police) July 25, 2022
Ahead of the crucial proceedings in court today, the Islamabad Police has urged party leaders and political workers to enter the premises only with the SC’s permission.
Furthermore, the police have stated that political gatherings and processions of any sort will be “strictly not allowed”.
They stopped media and lawyers from entering the premises. “Only those whose names are on the list are allowed to enter the courtroom,” an official told lawyers trying to enter the premises.
Shujaat, PPP file petitions
The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, head of Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), filed applications with the SC requesting to be made a party to the deputy speaker ruling case that is currently being heard by the court.
Chaudhry Shujaat in his application to the court said that he “wrote a letter to the Deputy Speaker on July 22” and argued that Dost Mazari had “disregarded the votes on the basis of the letter”.
“The votes given to Pervez Elahi by the PML-Q MPAs were in violation of Article 63” furthered the application and requested the court to make Chaudhry Shujaat a party to the case as he was “the relevant party in the case”.
Earlier a request was also made by the PPP lawyer Farooq Naik after PML-Q leader and Punjab Assembly Speaker Pervez Elahi moved the SC over Deputy Speaker Dost Mazari’s decision to disregard the party members’ votes in the provincial chief executive’s election.
Read More: Ruling coalition seething over SC ruling on Hamza's 'trustee CM' status
The application says that the PPP being “one of the largest political parties of Pakistan ought to be affected by any decision made” by the court as it interprets Article 63-A of the Constitution of Pakistan and therefore pleaded that it was a “necessary party” to the case.
Citing senior party leader and former prime minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani’s case where seven votes were disregarded costing him the election, the petition said the PPP leaders "have always been victims of circumstances including political maneuvering, martial laws and coups resulting in the ouster of elected governments followed by judicial murder and assassinations.”
“Thus, it would be in the interest of the public at large if the applicant is impeded as a party and heard before any order is passed by this Honourable Court while interpreting Article 63-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,” read the application.
The PPP petition also said that if it is "not heard in this matter of great importance not only [the] PPP as a political party will be condemned unheard but also all the members” and implored the court that "refusing to hear the above-named applicant would be oppressive to judicial conscience and would cause a perpetuity of injustice which would not be tolerated by a just judicial system.”
'Shujaat's letter not received'
PML-Q leader Moonis Elahi spoke to the media outside the court and claimed that nine of the party MPAs had not received Chaudhry Shujaat's letter wherein he had requested the deputy speaker to disregard PML-Q member's votes in the Punjab CM elections.
"I have brought the nine MPAs with me to the court," said Moonis, adding that they will give their testimony in front of the bench today.
This will be updated…