It’s our obligation to protect Constitution: CJP Umer Ata Bandial

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umer Ata Bandial Monday justified the suo motu notice, taken on the ruling of former deputy speaker of the National rejecting the no-confidence motion against former prime minister Imran Khan, and observed that they were exercising their original jurisdiction with caution, adhering to the Constitution.

A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, resumed hearing in the presidential reference, seeking interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution.

The CJP observed that it was their obligation to protect the Constitution, adding they could interpret the Constitution and would do so. He observed that the presidential reference had sought the interpretation of Article 63-A, hence its interpretation was essential for the parliamentary democracy.

“We have to interpret Article 63-A not only for you but also for the coming generation,” CJP told Babar Awan, the counsel for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan. The chief justice said that they exercise their original jurisdiction of suo motu under Article 184(3) and adhere to the Constitution, adding that they do not take action on the wishes of others but according to their own conscience and in accordance with the Constitution.

The chief justice, while justifying the suo motu notice, said that 12 judges of the apex court had agreed to deal with the important constitutional matter. “We are now dealing with the principles of Constitution, not facts,” the chief justice observed, adding that they do not have any concerns with 25 dissident legislators of the PTI.

The court issued notices to Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) as well as Speaker National Assembly in the petition, filed by PTI Chairman Imran Khan, seeking disqualification of party's dissident members for life.

Earlier, at the start of hearing, Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman submitted before the court that the government had moved a summary to the President for appointment of Ashter Ausaf as new Attorney General, which would be approved.

Secondly, he said in pursuance of Article 63-A, the PTI had filed references in the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against its dissident lawmakers and, as per constitutional requirements, these references were required to be decided in 30 days.

At this, the CJP said they knew that references had been filed with the ECP, but the court would have to examine the questions of law, raised in the presidential reference. “Article 63-A is a constitutional matter and we have to protect the Constitution. It is our obligation to protect the Constitution and to interpret it,” the CJP remarked.

“It’s an important issue regarding parliamentary democracy and the court will have to examine questions of law raised in the presidential reference,” the CJP remarked.

“We are least bothered about any criticism as we have to defend the Constitution,” the CJP added. The CJ said that PMLN counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan had also sought adjournment until May 17 and asked as to when he would come. His associate told the court that he would return by May 15.

Advocate Azhar Siddique, counsel for PMLQ on video link from Lahore Registry, told the court that there were rumours that after the appointment of new attorney general, the present government might withdraw the presidential reference.

The CJP, however, said the government might be aware of the importance of the reference, and hoped that it would not become a hurdle in the interpretation of Article 63-A.

Babar Awan submitted that the way the court heard all parties with patience was respectable for him, and added that he would assist the court as per Constitution and on the law points. “I don’t want to comment on the statements made by some friends,” Babar Awan said.

At this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked the counsel to tell his party people also to show respect, adding that he should also tell his people that courts had also remained open late at night till 2:30am in Quetta also.

Babar Awan said that Article 63-A is a distinct process in the Constitution and it is to be read also with Article 62 and 63 for interpretation. He also cited the apex court judgment delivered in the case of Samiullah Baloch verses Abdul Karim Nausherwani that held that the places where in the Constitution did not mention the term of disqualification, it is to be taken with the wisdom of Islamic injunctions.

“But Article 62 (1)(f) must have some mechanism,” Justice Mandokhel said, adding that without justification and confirmation, people tend to criticise.

The judge asked Babar Awan as to whether the Election Commission could declare a dissident member of any party as dishonest and liar.

Babar Awan replied that the ECP could do so, adding that in the country’s biggest province Punjab, the lawmakers of the PTI openly voted for the candidate of another party. “Twenty-six members in the largest province of the country crossed the barrier and voted to another party,” Babar Awan submitted.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked whether the lawmakers voted to another party in a coalition government, and whether it would also be tantamount to defection.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel observed that disqualification takes place only by moving from one parliamentary party to another one. “If a person is elected from a constituency, and his constituency is compensated during the legislation process, then whether that person was even then required to remain silent and he can’t raise his voice,” the judge asked Awan.

Babar Awan replied the said person elected on the said party ticket has the only remedy to resign from his seat, adding that in the past resignations were taken on pressure as well as on his own will.

“My simple question is whether on defection, a person besides his de-seating could also be disqualified or not,” Justice Mandokhel asked the counsel. The judge questioned as to whether the court could enhance the fine as given for de-seating.

Babar Awan replied that this is the first case of its kind coming before the court and for this issue, a Pandora’s box has to be opened and to see what is in it.

The counsel submitted that the court has to interpret the Constitution and requested for disqualifying the dissidents for lifetime.

The chief justice, however, asked the counsel to focus on the law points, raised in the presidential reference.

“So focus on the question of law as to what is the purpose of Article 63-A of the Constitution and assist the court for a solution,” the CJP asked Babar Awan.

When Babar Awan told the court that the court did not take action after the Senate elections, adding that the Election Commission was responsible for negligence, the chief justice told him why he did not approach the court then and why the then government did not take action.

“The courts don’t take action on the protest launched before the Election Commission of Pakistan, and you should have approached the court in this regard,” the CJP told the counsel.

Babar Awan submitted that all the institutions were ridiculed, adding that they must be respected. He further submitted that harsh remarks were passed by a court regarding President of Pakistan but, being an educated person, he remained silent.

The chief justice told the counsel that if he had any reservations regarding the remarks, passed against the President, then he should file a petition, the court would look into it. “We have to protect the Constitution and you see how we are giving importance to the reference, filed by the President, seeking interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution.” Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing for Tuesday (today). Babar Awan will take one hour more for his arguments.