The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected all the requests to form a full court. Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandyal said that the basis of the case is a legal question whether the party leader can give instructions to the members of the assembly or not. The Deputy Speaker will hear the case tomorrow at 11:30 am.

According to the decision, the Supreme Court rejected the request to form a full court in the case of Chief Minister of Punjab. The detailed decision regarding not forming a full court will be issued later. will

Earlier, the hearing of the case resumed after a break of about an hour and a half , when the Chief Justice said that he could not say anything about the issue of forming a full court or not.

The court had accepted the request of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and People’s Party to become a party, while earlier the Supreme Court had reserved the decision on the full court.

A 3-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial conducted the hearing, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar are also included in the bench.

Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly Dost Mohammad Mazari’s lawyer Irfan Qadir and Parvaiz Elahi’s lawyer Ali Zafar appeared in the court, while PPP’s Farooq H. Naik and Chaudhry Shujaat’s barrister Salahuddin formed a full court in the court. Arguments were given on the application.

The Chief Justice said that more legal clarification is needed to form a full court, and will decide after hearing the arguments whether to form a full court or not.

Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal inquired that who will give arguments on merit?

Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar said that the Council should hear the revision appeal on Article 63A tomorrow.

In response, Justice Ejazul Hassan said that we have to hear more arguments, want more explanation why a larger bench or a full court should be made?

Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly Dost Muhammad Mazari’s lawyer Irfan Qadir said that he was instructed to request to speak in full court only, time should be given to take instructions from his client.

Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer Mansoor Awan sought time to take instructions for arguments on merit.

Justice Ejazul Hassan said that if you want to make a full court on your request, then it is fine, otherwise no, after hearing the arguments on merit, they will decide whether to make a full court or not.

The Law Minister said that there is already an explanation that a full court should be formed, in response to which Justice Ijazul Hassan said that you want to do quick shopping, Azam Nazir Tarar said that no quick shopping, we have no objection to anyone. Is.

The Chief Justice said that the NRO case was heard by the full court as it was a constitutional issue.

Irfan Qadir said that when the same judge comes to the bench again and again, the charge can be rejected by the full court, this is common on social media and by word of mouth.

He said that the displeasure of Justice Ijazul Hassan was felt on that day and even today, I wish it was not there, there is no ambiguity about the neutrality of the present bench, but the full court is necessary to reject the allegations, on the hearing on Saturday. The order was placed at 11:30 and I spoke to the client an hour later.

Lawyer Dost Mazari said that the court wrote in its order that I did not come unprepared, the words of unprepared should be deleted.

The Chief Justice said that if you have come prepared for arguments for the full court, then fine, otherwise, listen to Mansoor Awan, there is a huge problem of governance in our country, we have taken notice of the issue of federalism day and night. I heard and decided, on the federal issue we were of the opinion that the Deputy Speaker violated Article 95, in the present case we did not take notice of ourselves, this case is not long but can be shortened.

Dost Mazari’s lawyer Irfan Qadir said that I have never given such long arguments. The Chief Justice said that the only question in the case is whether the party chief can give instructions or not. You have already answered the question that the party chief Can give instructions.

Irfan Qadir said that the re-election of the Chief Minister was held in the light of the court decision. If the decision to reject the votes of the defecting members is changed, there will be no need for re-polling. The basis of the case is the court decision. It is necessary.

Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly lawyer Irfan Qadir said that the court was right that the situation of the country can be different if political people make decisions among themselves, even if the judiciary agrees, many problems can be solved, Article 63 A of the Supreme Court. There is a contradiction in the judgement, it seems that the court is under pressure, it will not understand that I am disrespecting the Supreme Court. have to go but the institutions will remain intact, you say about the politicians that there is chaos in the country due to differences among them, if the judges themselves unite and form a full court, then the problem can be solved.

Irfan Qadir said that the other party that the Chief Minister wants to bring, he used to call him bandits, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain is a major politician of Pakistan, Chaudhry Shujaat wants to put his position before the court, if someone has defected, the decision will be taken by the Election Commission. God has to do it, please do not hurry in this case, you said that politicians do not come together, even if the judges are not in harmony, there will be no stability in the country, even if the judicial decision is not biased, it cannot be declared free of bias. will

After the arguments of Dost Muhammad Mazari’s lawyer Irfan Qadir were completed, PPP’s lawyer Farooq H. Naik gave arguments.

Farooq H. Naik said that it is requested to hear this case tomorrow morning with a fresh mind, tomorrow the hearing will be held in a peaceful environment. Chief Justice asked Farooq H. Naik whether the atmosphere is charged yet?

Justice Ijazul Hassan said that we are sitting quietly, you should give arguments.

Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial said that we are sitting to decide according to conscience, today social media looks at perception instead of facts, but we do not care about it, the question in the present case is that there were no instructions from the parliamentary party. It’s not a very difficult case, it just needs a more solid constitutional argument that the instructions of the party leader have to be followed. voted, there was no talk of distrust, we have to strengthen democracy.

Farooq H. Naik said that Parliament’s issues should not come to court.

The Chief Justice said that if the Parliament takes an illegal step, the court will intervene, read Article 69 before us.

Justice Ijazul Hassan said that Mr. Farooq Naik, we want to give a decision on the question that is in front of us. If our judgment is misunderstood, we correct it, we cannot open a Pandora’s box of cases.

Farooq H. Naik said that the Supreme Court should see that it cannot interfere in the internal proceedings of the Parliament.

Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial said that the exception to the assembly proceedings is only on the procedure of proceedings, we have to strengthen democracy.

Justice Ijazul Hasan said that the lack of confidence was not an internal matter of the parliament. At that time you used to say that the court has full authority, today you stand on the other side and say that the court does not have authority.

Farooq H. Naik said that now the time and circumstances have changed, the court should adjourn the case till Thursday.

Chaudhry Shujaat’s lawyer, Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed, while starting the arguments on the request to become a party, said that he will also present the letter to the court, which was written to the members, the request to become a party is Chaudhry Shujaat and Q-League as a party.

Justice Ijazul Hassan said that you are going to the facts of the case, the court has to determine the legal point. Barrister Salahuddin said that when the letters were written, when were they received? remarked that the court had only asked the question for understanding, the speaker gave the decision in the light of the court order and not at the time of receiving the letter.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar argued that all the members are important in the parliamentary party, there should not be dictatorship of the party leader in the parliamentary party, decisions are taken in consultation with the parliamentary party.

Before the adjournment in the hearing, former President Supreme Court Bar Latif Afridi demanded the Supreme Court to form a full court on behalf of all the bar councils.

Former President Supreme Court Bar Latif Afridi says that all the cases should be heard together by forming a full court consisting of available judges.

Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, while giving remarks during the hearing, said that you all have a lot of respect, I am grateful to you for putting the matter before us, Mr. Afridi! This case is based on our Article 63A opinion, we want to decide after hearing the parties, we cannot decide unilaterally.

Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial says that they cannot decide on the words of 10 former presidents, it is also important to listen to the other side.

Chief Justice’s conversation with Farooq Naik

During the hearing, PPP’s lawyer Farooq H. Naik said that requests to become a party in the case have also been filed.

Talking to Farooq Naik, the Chief Justice said that let the initial case be heard, the rest of the cases will be heard later, you will also be heard, but you will have to proceed in order, you should sit down, I hope your seat is still vacant. Will be.

Farooq H. Naik said that the seat is something to come, what is the problem of the seat.

Can’t even think of putting pressure on the judiciary, President Supreme Court Bar

During the hearing, President Supreme Court Bar Ahsan Bhavan said that he cannot even think of putting pressure on the judiciary, it would be appropriate that the request for revision of the interpretation of Article 63A should be heard first.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan said, “What is the hurry, Mr. Bhawan, first hear the case.”

Barrister Ali Zafar said that I am also a former bar president, bar presidents should not be involved in these matters.

Irfan Qadir read out the decision of 23 July

Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly Dost Mazari’s lawyer Irfan Qadir read out the July 23 decision of the court.

Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that your question is, how did Article 63A get the impression that there was talk of a parliamentary party or a head?

Lawyer Irfan Qadir replied that this question is yours on which this special bench has been formed, the legal question is that if the position of the parliamentary party is different and the party head is different then what will happen?

Irfan Qadir says that it should be clear what is the legal question that is being heard, it is not my job to tell the question that is being heard, the court should decide, the issue is probably the powers of the parliamentary party and the party head.

Chief Justice directed Irfan Qadir to read Article 63A from the constitution book and said that both party head and parliamentary party are mentioned in Article 63A.

I am very much confused, lawyer Irfan Qadir

Lawyer Irfan Qadir said that I am suffering from a lot of confusion, I do not understand exactly what is the question.

On which Justice Ijazul Hassan said that you should listen to the court.

Lawyer Irfan Qadir said that we can easily understand this matter.

Justice Ijazul Hassan said that you should first listen to what we are saying.

I think you are having a hard time hearing, Chief Justice’s conversation with Irfan Qadir

Speaking to Irfan Qadir, the Chief Justice said that I think you are having difficulty in listening, the next time the court is interrupted, you will be back on your chair.

Lawyer Irfan Qadir said that no matter how much you reprimand me, I will not be offended.

Lawyer Irfan Qadir said that Article 14 of the Constitution talks about personal dignity and the dignity of the judge, the judge has the right to reprimand the lawyers.

Justice Ijazul Hassan said that we are talking to you with respect, you should read Article 63A with us, we are not scolding anyone, we are addressing you as honorable.

On which Irfan Qadir said that if you say honorable, then I will say even more honorable, I will answer whatever question the court asks, you were angry, I did not come to anger the court.

Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that we are not angry, you give arguments.

Justice Ijazul Hassan asked if the same person can give instructions to the declaration and the parliamentary party. There is no ambiguity in the judicial decision.

Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly lawyer said that there are rights of political party in the constitution.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that the Deputy Speaker said that according to the decision of the Supreme Court the party leader gives the direction, the Deputy Speaker gave the ruling referring to the decision of the Supreme Court, we have understood the point you want to raise. .

Justice Muneeb Akhtar, talking to Irfan Qadir, said that it would be appropriate to give another lawyer a chance.

Arguments of Chief Minister Punjab Hamza Shahbaz’s lawyer Mansoor Usman started

Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan asked Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer to tell the point of the court decision referred to by the Deputy Speaker.

Lawyer Mansoor Usman Awan said that the vote against the party policy will be rejected, that is the point.

Justice Ejazul Hassan remarked that the party directive and declaration are two different things, can the party chief be the head of the parliamentary party?

Lawyer Mansoor Awan said that it is stated in the decisions of the Supreme Court that the role of the party leader is to give direction to the party.

Direct answer to the question, dialogue with Justice Ejazul Hassan’s lawyer Mansoor Awan

Justice Ejazul Hasan, talking to Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer Mansoor Awan, asked him to answer the question directly.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that Article 63A was amended after the 14th Amendment, he instructed Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer to read the amended Article 63A, the original version of Article 63A has two or three angles.

Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer Mansoor Awan said that there is a mention of the party chief in Article 63A, according to Justice Azmat Saeed’s decision, the party chief takes all the decisions.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that there are two different rules related to casting votes in the party policy, first there was ambiguity in the powers of the parliamentary party and the party leader, after the amendment in Article 63A, the parliamentary party has the authority to direct.

Justice Ijazul Hassan asked Hamza’s lawyer to tell him which part of the Supreme Court decision the Deputy Speaker relied on.

Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer said that the Deputy Speaker relied on Para 3 of the judgment on Article 63A of the Supreme Court, an 8-member bench of Justice Azmat Saeed which decided on the party chief’s powers.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the decision of the larger bench of the Supreme Court is not binding on us in my personal opinion.

The Chief Justice asked the lawyer of Hamza Shehbaz that you are trying to say that the parliamentary party also runs on the instructions of the party leader.

The Supreme Court should constitute a full court on the issue of Article 63A, lawyer Hamza Shehbaz

Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer said that the decision on Article 63A is against the precedents of the past, the Supreme Court should constitute a full court on the issue of Article 63A. Only he can decide.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that there are rules on the point of declaring a court decision unconstitutional.

The Chief Justice said that your point is that the Supreme Court’s brief order on Article 63A has created confusion, the revision petitions filed against Article 63A only point to rejection of the vote, how the parliamentary party directive. This is a separate question.

Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked that the method of giving instructions could be a party meeting or through a letter.

Hamza Shehbaz’s lawyer argued that I have examples of 4 political parties whose head is not a part of the assembly, the parliamentary party is associated with the head of its party, I want to explain the reasons for giving the ruling.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that there will be a reason to give voting power to the parliamentary party.

The authority of the parliamentary party cannot be ignored, Justice Ijazul Ahsan

Justice Ijazul Hassan remarked that the authority of the parliamentary party cannot be ignored, Article 63A says that a declaration is issued against a member who does not obey the instructions of the parliamentary party, there is no ambiguity in my mind as to who gave the direction. They are religious.

He said that the political party itself is the same as the parliamentary party, the role of the party leader is very important, the party leader decides to send a reference against the deviant member, who to vote for, the parliamentary party will give the instructions and the reference. The head will send.

Lawyer Mansoor Awan said that the JUIF party is in the name of the chief, Maulana Fazlur Rehman is not a part of the parliamentary party, the people are accountable to the party chief, not the parliamentary party.

The Chief Justice remarked that the presidential reference hearing had made it clear that the party chief’s dictatorship must end, as a senior parliamentary leader had complained of dictatorship in parties during the presidential reference.

He said that the heads of the political parties have to listen to their members, the political leaders sitting abroad used to give instructions to the parliamentary members, the parliamentary party was strengthened through the constitutional amendment, the parliamentary party also has its own purpose.

Justice Ijazul Hassan said that the Deputy Speaker rejected the votes by relying on our own decision, if you are defending the ruling of the Deputy Speaker, then you have accepted the decision of Article 63 A. Having accepted the judgment of A and relied upon it, it is now to be determined whether the Deputy Speaker has correctly understood the judgment of the Supreme Court or not.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan remarked that it is necessary to empower the parliamentary party in parliamentary matters, the way of hereditary politics will not be blocked by maintaining the dictatorship of the party leader.

Justice Ijazul Hassan asked whose instructions the QL members voted against? The members who are elected and sent to the assembly by the people have the mandate.

Prime Minister Nazir Tarar came to the rostrum

Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar came to the rostrum, the judges asked Azam Nazir Tarar to sit down.

Azam Nazir Tarar said that important instructions have been received and I want to inform them.

Justice Ijazul Hassan said that inform your lawyer about the instructions. In the UK, all the powers belong to the parliamentary party. In the UK, the party leader does not have any role in the parliament. The constitution is clear that the parliamentary party will give instructions to the members.

Justice Ijazul Hassan asked that you think that the interpretation of the Deputy Speaker is correct? If the court decision is wrong, the vote cannot be rejected.