PTI's objections over Article 63-A bench dismissed
The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously dismissed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan's objections to the bench formed to hear the review petition on Article 63-A.
The case revolves around review of the apex court's May 17, 2022 interpretation of the Article 63-A, which deals with disqualification of lawmakers who defy party policies. In June 2022, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) filed a petition in the apex court for a review of that verdict.
Through its May 17, 2022 verdict, the SC had declared that the vote cast contrary to the parliamentary party lines under Article 63-A should not be counted. The penalty for violating Article 63-A is disqualification of the defecting lawmaker.
The decision on this matter holds significant implications for political discipline within the country's party system, making the ongoing case a focal point of political interest.
On Wednesday, a five-member bench of the apex court led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel heard the objections raised by the PTI founder.
Justice Afghan had been included in the bench after Justice Munib Akhar - part of the bench that originally formed for the case - and senior puisne judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah decided not to sit on the larger bench.
Justice Akhtar's decision came against the backdrop of his removal from the three-judge committee established under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 after the promulgation of an amendment ordinance granting the CJP authority to select any judge as the committee's third member.
Meanwhile, in a letter, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, a member of the three-judge committee, had announced boycotting the panel over "unfettered and arbitrary discretion" vested in the CJP's role, while protesting Justice Akhtar's removal.
During the hearing, PTI lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar contended that the bench's formation did not follow proper constitutional procedures and that the parties had not been notified adequately in advance about the hearing.
Zafar contended that the lack of issuance of notice compromised the fairness of the proceedings, adding that the procedure adopted by the court a day earlier was "unconstitutional".
"All were gathered on the same day and asked who supported the review [petition]. It was necessary to issue notices to the parties [concerned] in this case," he said.
"This manner is not right; the bench is not lawful. It is not even right according to the amendment ordinance," he argued. Now my arguments will be tough," he added. The top judge remarked that he had not seen bitterness his tone till today.
At one point, the PTI's counsel stated that according to the Practice and Procedure Act, benches were to be formed as per the majority view of a three-member committee of judges. "There is no scope in the law that two members of the committee form benches," he asserted.
The top judge remarked that the PTI had opposed this Act. Barrister Zafar replied that what was said during the arguments was not important; what mattered was the apex court's verdict.
Justice Mandokhail remarked that the PTI could introduce a bill in parliament to repeal the existing ordinance. Barrister Zafar argued that Justice Munib was not part of the bench on September 30, adding that the bench should not have convened in his absence.
He said the September 30 bench was not constituted by anyone. The CJP told Barrister Zafar that he could not choose the judges. The counsel sought the court's permission to meet with Imran to discuss the case with him, at which CJP Isa directed him to give his arguments.
"If you had to consult with him, then you should've told us yesterday; we could've issued an order [in that regard]," the CJP said.
Zafar pointed out that Justice Shah's letter, wherein he had expressed displeasure with the ordinance, called for a full court to deliberate the matter. Later during the hearing, CJP Isa said: "I have no issues with summoning a full court."
Later, the court granted time to the PTI counsel to have consultation with the PTI founder in jail and also instructed the Attorney General for Pakistan to make arrangements in this regard. The court unanimously dismissed PTI's objections to the exclusion of Justice Munib from the judges' committee and the bench. The hearing of the case was adjourned until Thursday (today).