When 15 people go to other side, system comes to an end: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed grave concerns over the statements of the prime minister and questioned if the prime minister had no confidence in the country’s highest institution, then how would the MPs have.

During the hearing, the chief justice observed that even if a member was de-seated and the no-confidence motion against the prime minister was unsuccessful, the ruling party “still loses the majority”. Supreme Court Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that “a few lawmakers switching loyalties to change a government at any time is a joke”.

A five-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, heard the Presidential Reference seeking interpretation of Article 63(A) of the constitution.

During the course of hearing, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel questioned as to whether the prime minister could not be restrained from making irresponsible statements. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel asked Attorney General Khalid Javed Khan about the impression being taken from the questions raised by the court.Justice Mandokhel questioned as to whether the prime minister had no confidence in the country’s highest institution adding if the prime minister did not, then how could the Members of Parliament have. Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial, however, observed that these statements may influence the nearby people but not the judges. Attorney General Khalid Javed, however, expressed his ignorance over the statements of the prime minister and submitted that the prime minister has full confidence in the judiciary.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed a few lawmakers switching loyalties to change a government at any time is a joke adding that Article 63-A has direct relation with the system, which is affected by changing loyalties. “When 15 people go to the other side, the system comes to an end,” the judge added.

Justice Mandokhel, however, observed that how it could affect the system when people change their loyalties within the system adding that one party benefits while the other loses when 15 people change their loyalties. The judge recalled that in Balochsitan the members of a party expressed no-confidence in its own chief minister.

Advancing his argument, the AGP again connected the Article 63(A) with Article 62(1) (f) adding that in the past the political parties in the present opposition had termed changing loyalties as cancer. At this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel observed that if the political parties wish that one should be disqualified for life over changing loyalties, then this should be left for the Parliament. “But the Parliament has done its job and now the court should interpret it”, the AGP replied.

At the outset of his arguments, the AGP, citing the case titled Habib Akram versus the Speaker, submitted that the Parliament, while considering some documents as irrelevant, had excluded in the process of filing of nomination papers but the court, to ensure the process was transparent, made mandatory for the candidates for submitting an affidavit along with the nomination papers.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen asked the AGP as to how Article 63-A would be linked with Article 62(1(f) of the constitution. The AGP replied that if a member has shaken the confidence of his party, then he is dishonest and consequently Article 62(1(f) would be applied.

Justice Ahsen asked if a dissident member is breaching the confidence, then to whom, dishonesty will be made, the party or the voters. To both, the AGP replied adding that when a member takes votes on a particular party ticket and than revolts, he breaches the trust of voters as well as the party. The AGP said that legally the violation of Article 63(A) is dishonesty, therefore, Article 62(1) (f) will be applied.

Justice Mandokhel asked the AGP if there is any punishment for resigning. Unfortunately, nobody is resigning and this is the main issue, the AGP replied. “It means that the Reference was filed for a few people,” Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked.

Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial observed that one has to face the consequences for violating the policy of the party adding that Article 63-A says that one loses his seat for defection. “The court’s decision is necessary for Article 62(1)(f) as under Article 63 the disqualification of an MP is two to five years,” the Chief Justice observed. Justice Munib Akhtar observed that the process of nomination papers is before election while Article 63-A relates to process after election to Parliament.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed that the main question before the court is about the span of disqualification when someone violates the party’s policy.“We cannot restrict political parties from making political statements but political leaders should refrain from dragging judges into politics,” CJP Bandial stated. Therefore, politicians should avoid influencing courts through political statements.

Justice Alam criticised Prime Minister Imran Khan over his remarks about the judges in his recent address in Kamalia. At this, Justice Mandokhel asked if PM Imran Khan does not trust the apex court. “Shouldn’t the prime minister have avoided issuing irresponsible statements?”

On Saturday, PM Imran Khan, while addressing a public gathering in Kamalia, had said that PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif was trying to woo judges against his government. Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial directed that the political leadership should avoid discussing subjudice matters.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel observed that once a party head gives a declaration, then the matter should be left to the Election Commission to decide as the law was very much clear about it and there was no need to ask the court in this regard. “When the decision of the Election Commission came to court, it will be looked into,” the judge added

The Attorney General, however, submitted that Article 63-A is for saving the system adding that no question has been asked in the Reference about its procedure adding that the basic question was about the length of disqualification as well as the counting of dissidents vote.

The Chief Justice observed that Article 95 of the constitution talks about no–confidence motion against the prime minister adding that the government comes to an end when the allied parties refused to support it. The chief justice further said that when the ruling party members resign or express no confidence in the prime minister, the result will be the same. “Democracy is an amazing system but having some complexities too as well,” the Chief Justice remarked.

The Attorney General submitted that Article 63-A was inserted into the constitution for discouraging horse trading to which the Chief Justice observed that democracy is there in the basic structure of our constitution adding that everyone had agreed to parliamentary democracy. “It is to see as what is best for democracy,” the Chief Justice remarked but questioned as to why the Parliament has not yet determined the length of disqualification in Article 63 of the constitution.

The court adjourned the hearing till Tuesday 1pm.