SC rejects plea to form full bench

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Monday declined the plea for the constitution of a full bench to hear the matter of Punjab chief minister’s election.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar, heard the petition of Punjab Assembly Speaker Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, challenging the ruling of Deputy Speaker Dost Muhammad Mazari.

The chief justice said the matter was of urgent nature and it could not be delayed, holding that this bench would hear the case.

The CJP announced a short order at 9:15pm after a day-long proceeding and said that the court needed more legal clarification regarding the formation of a full bench to issue a verdict on the case.

“We have heard the petitioners on merit who were arguing on facts and requesting for constituting a full bench,” the CJP ruled in his short order, adding that the essence of the matter is a question of law if the party’s head can issue a direction to members for casting votes or if such a declaration can be issued by the parliamentary party.

“Such declarations/directions of the parliamentary party have already been held in our judgment passed May 17, 2022, in the Presidential Reference, seeking interpretation of Article 63-A,” the CJP said in the short order.

“The Punjab Assembly deputy speaker while giving the ruling had made an error and misapplied the judgment of this court,” the CJP held in the short order.

The chief justice said a strong legal basis was required for Hamza Shehbaz to be the chief minister, adding that the higher vote getter is out of office.

The court adjourned the hearing for Tuesday (today) holding that the learned counsel for the parties would be heard.

Earlier, Mansoor Awan, counsel for Hamza Shehbaz and Salahuddin, counsel for PMLQ president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, had requested the court to constitute a full court to hear the case. The court after hearing the matter adjourned for one and a half hour, holding that it would resume at 5:30pm after deliberating upon if the matter could be heard by a full court or not .

When the court resumed at 5:30pm, the CJP said that they would hear Salahuddin, counsel for Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, and Farooq H Naek of the PPP.

Mansoor Awan, counsel for Hamza Shehbaz, submitted that he would seek instructions from his client, adding that he was specifically instructed to pray for the constitution of a full bench.

Similarly, Irfan Qadir, counsel for Deputy Speaker Dost Mohammad Mazari, also sought time for seeking instructions.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan, however, said that the decision to form a full bench would be taken on merit.

Federal Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar submitted that there was enough clarification in this regard. While diverting the court’s attention, he said that a review petition on Article 63-A was not yet taken up by the court. He told the court that the Punjab CM had prayed for a full bench while a review petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association was not yet taken up. Justice Ijazul Ahsan said, if needed, the court would look into it after hearing the instant matter on merit.

Tarar said that the question whether the vote of dissident members would be counted or not had to be interpreted.

The CJP reminded the law minister that a five-member bench had sent a prime minister packing.

“And remember you had distributed sweets after the court’s judgment,” the CJP told Tarar.

Arguing before the court, Irfan Qadir, counsel for Deputy Speaker Dost Muhammad Mazari, recalled that when the case of SC judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa had come to the court, it was heard by a 10-member bench, adding that as the recent matter was of high importance relating to Pakistan’s biggest province, hence the full bench should hear it.

Qadir said that he was not questioning the neutrality of the court but if a full bench was constituted, the perception that one bench was consistently hearing political cases would come to an end.

Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial said that a full bench was only constituted when there were serious matters, adding that after hearing all the parties on merit, they would consider it, if needed.

“There is a problem of good governance in the country,” the CJP said, adding that they had heard the case of the National Assembly deputy speaker and given the verdict.

Irfan Qadir said that defection cases were related to the ECP, pleading the court not to decide the instant matter in haste.

“If your lordship says that politicians, including treasury and opposition, don’t sit together, your lordship should also need unity to decide cases.”

The CJP said that social media relied on perception and ignored the facts, adding that in the instant case, the court wanted to examine if the party head could overrule the direction of the parliamentary party to its members for casting vote in accordance with the party policy.

When Farooq H Naek came to the rostrum, the chief justice said Naek had a pleasing personality and he always appeared before the court with a smiling face.

The CJP said that the parliamentary party represented the public in parliament that elected its representatives.

“You are the architect of 18th Amendment that has empowered the parliamentary party,” the CJP told Naek.

“We want democracy to take roots and want institutions to strengthen,” the CJP said, adding that they don’t want to strengthen individuals.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan said that the basic question was if the deputy speaker implied the court judgment correctly or not, adding that if he did not imply it correctly, they will correct it.

“But it should also be looked into if this court can intervene in the internal proceedings of the parliament,” Farooq Naek replied.

The CJP said that if the matter related to the breach of the Constitution, the court could take it up.

Meanwhile, Farooq H Naek requested the court to adjourn the matter until Thursday.

Salahuddin, counsel for Chaudhry Shujaat, also contended that a full bench should be constituted for hearing the matter. He cited an SC judgment of 2015 wherein importance had been given to the party’s head instead of the parliamentary party.

The CJP said that the worsening economic situation was a matter of great concern. “But we don’t want to delay matters of public importance,” the CJP said, adding that the affairs of the state must go on.

Salahuddin said that he had confidence in the bench but added that it would be better that a full bench is constituted wherein all the learned judges decide the case on merit. He requested the court to constitute a full bench for hearing this important matter.

Former Supreme Court Bar Association president Abdul Latif Afridi also requested the court to constitute a full bench for instant hearing.

He said that the review petition filed by SCBA on Article 63-A should also be fixed before a full bench.

Likewise, Barrister Ali Zafar, counsel for PTI/Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, said that there was no need for a full bench, adding that the matter is very simple and the Constitution is very much clear about it that only the parliamentary party can issue directions to its members for casting their votes during the election of the chief minister.

Later, the court adjourned the matter for Tuesday (today) at 11:30am