The Supreme Court on Saturday directed that Hamza Shehbaz would remain as a ‘trustee’ chief minister of Punjab by July 25 (Monday) -- the next date of hearing -- after the lawyer representing the deputy speaker of the provincial assembly could not satisfy the bench over the latter's ruling wherein 10 PML-Q MPAs’ votes were rejected in a recount for the election of the province’s top slot held a day earlier.
The top court also directed that Hamza would neither use his powers for political gain, nor take major initiatives or decisions until then.
A three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhter, was hearing a plea at the Supreme Court’s Lahore Registry filed by PML-Q leader and Punjab Assembly Speaker Chaudhry Parvez Elahi -- who was also the other candidate for the CM slot -- challenging Deputy Speaker Sardar Dost Muhammad Mazari’s ruling wherein he had rejected 10 votes of PML-Q members relying upon the ruling of the SC that read that the votes of those lawmakers, who denied following the party’s instructions, would not be counted.
The proceedings revolved around different points including a main one wherein CJP Bandial asked Mazari’s counsel Irfan Qadir to read the specific part of the SC verdict following which the deputy speaker gave his own ruling and rejected the votes.
“You are the most senior lawyer and you will be fully aware about how the deputy speaker assumed that the real essence of the Supreme Court’s ruling is that what he said,” the CJP remarked.
However, Mazari’s counsel could not satisfy the court over its queries.
In proceedings in the morning, Elahi’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar argued that the ruling of the Punjab Assembly deputy speaker was a sheer violation of the Constitution.
He argued that the deputy speaker’s interpretation of the SC ruling, relying upon which the 10 votes were rejected, was not only incorrect but also contrary to its real essence.
Zafar contended that the members could only cast their votes following the instructions of the parliamentary party in light of the Supreme Court’s decision but the deputy speaker ruined the real essence of that ruling.
He told the court that the election for the chief minister’s post was held on July 22, under the auspices of the Supreme Court’s judgement in which two candidates participated.
He pointed out that Elahi had secured 186 votes out of which 176 votes belonged to the PTI and 10 votes belonged to PML-Q . Whereas Hamza Shehbaz of the PML-N received 179 votes.
Zafar claimed that under Article 130(3) of the Constitution, Elahi was the constitutionally elected chief minister. However, the deputy speaker, with malafide intention, instead of declaring him as the chief minister, passed a ruling by saying that the votes of the 10 PML-Q members could not be counted and relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court.
The lawyer noted that Article 63-A of the Constitution was in two parts.
The first part states that if a parliamentary party decides that its members are to cast the vote in favour of a particular candidate for the chief minister and the members violate that direction, then they can be disqualified under Article 63-A. For the process of disqualification, the implementation has to be carried out by the party head.
Similarly, the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the presidential reference also confirms that Article 63-A becomes applicable only when the parliamentary party makes a decision and the member refuses to follow it relating to voting for the chief minister.
The barrister argued that nowhere in Article 63-A or the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the presidential reference it was mentioned that the directions could be given by the party head instead of the parliamentary party.
The bench summoned Mazari in person at 2pm to listen to his point of view over his ruling. The bench further directed the deputy speaker to come up with the election record of the Punjab Assembly. The court also issued notices to Punjab Chief Minister Hamza and the chief secretary. The bench also summoned the attorney general for Pakistan and advocate general Punjab for legal assistance.
The proceedings were adjourned till 2pm.
Read more Interpreting Article 63A: impact on our political system
As the proceedings commenced at 2pm, the court was jam-packed. The CJP directed to hold proceedings in a separate courtroom where only lawyers would be allowed. However, the lawyers, PTI lawmakers and media personnel watched the proceedings in separate courtrooms on LED screens.
As the bench asked about the deputy speaker, his counsel replied that he could not make it owing to the charged crowd, so he was representing him in court.
He also told the court that he had the power of attorney to represent his client. The judges stood up to hold proceedings in a separate courtroom.
As the proceedings commenced again, the bench asked the deputy speaker’s counsel that how would he defend his client’s ruling. Advocate Qadir responded that they were relying on the Supreme Court’s decision wherein it was directed that the vote of dissident lawmakers would not be counted.
CJP Bandial asked the counsel to point out the part of the Supreme Court’s ruling relying upon which the deputy speaker had rejected the votes.
Qadir replied that he had studied the case for two hours only as he was new to the matter.
The CJP remarked that the bench was also two hours old and wanted him to read the order.
Advocate Qadir argued that the deputy speaker deemed it appropriate to reject the votes in light of the decision of the Supreme Court and he did so.
Justice Ahsan remarked that the court had said that the vote of a lawmaker, if it went against the parliamentary party’s instructions, would not be counted.
In response, Qadir said the deputy speaker believed that only the party’s head leads the parliamentary party. Justice Ahsan remarked what the results would be if the deputy speaker's understanding of the SC verdict was faulty.
The CJP asked about the assembly record. Qadir replied that he was unaware about whether or not it had been brought to the court.
“What specifically do you want to examine from the record?” the counsel asked the CJP. The CJP told him that bench wanted to see the letter which the deputy speaker’s was holding while giving his ruling.
The CJP remarked that prima facie it seemed that the deputy speaker had passed the ruling against the Supreme Court's decision. The court also directed the Punjab government to submit its detailed reply.
The CJP further noted that the country was passing through a critical phase so all the parties should come forward to resolve the issues.
“The party head’s dictatorship was eliminated through parliamentary party,” the CJP observed.
“We will not take this matter long [to settle]. We will continue watching the CM’s Office so that the chief minister will not make major decisions or initiatives."
The bench adjourned the proceedings till July 25 with the directions that the next hearing would be held in Islamabad.
PTI lawmakers including Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Asad Umar, Mian Mehmood ur Rasheed, Mian Aslam Iqbal and Sibtain Khan were present on the occasion.
Outside the court premises, PTI supporters gathered and chanted slogans in favour of Imran.
They demanded justice from the Supreme Court.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ