(Amant Gushkuri) The decision of the majority of judges related to Article 63A was annulled, the Supreme Court issued a detailed decision.
According to the details, the Supreme Court has issued a detailed decision on the revision request on Article 63 A, in which the decision of the majority judges has been declared null and void. The Supreme Court has said that the court decision of May 17, 2022 is against, the opinion of the minority judges is upheld.
It has been said in the judgment that according to PTI’s lawyer Ali Zafar, the author of the majority decision, Justice Muneeb Akhtar must be included in the bench. Akhtar and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s letters were also drawn to attention. Ali Zafar said that the 63A revision petition was set up for hearing in haste, when the bench was formed on the revision petition, Justice Muneeb Akhtar was a part of it, however. Justice Muneeb Akhtar refused to be a part of the bench, a written request was also made to Justice Muneeb Akhtar to join the bench, Justice Muneeb Akhtar did not approve the request to join the bench, another judge was replaced by Justice Muneeb Akhtar in the bench. Added.
The Supreme Court further says that the objection of hastily scheduling the revision petition for hearing is baseless, during the tenure of former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, the revision petition was not scheduled for hearing. Bandial was not reminded of the revision request, the majority decision reflects the trouble for the parliamentarians, according to the majority decision, once in history a parliamentarian conscientiously took the path of defection, such an insult is sad for the parliamentarians and politicians, don’t forget. Pakistan should have been achieved by politicians under the banner of All India Muslim League, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah strictly followed the path of the constitution, the majority decision is full of illegal reforms instead of law, healthy 41 times, unhealthy 5 times, Words like rudeness 9 times, evil 8 times, cancer 8 times, danger 4 times etc. were used.
In the detailed decision of the Supreme Court, it has been said that the presidential reference was sent by Arif Alvi to the Supreme Court, there is no reference to the approval of the cabinet or the advice of the prime minister with the presidential reference. The statement was recorded, the former Attorney General said that we are bringing a reference about Article 63 A, former Chief Justice Umar Attabandial and Justice Muneeb Akhtar wrote in the order that the reference and the constitutional petition should be combined.
The majority judgment of Article 63A is tantamount to insulting the members of the assembly. In the majority judgment, instead of giving legal reference, immoral words were used several times. The court has the power to examine the legal and illegal aspects of the case. One should refrain from discussing the morality and personal likes and dislikes. Can a judge determine the right, wrong, moral or immorality of a matter? Instead of getting involved in unnecessary things, the judge should act according to the constitution and the law. A decision should be given, Farooq H. Naik supported the court with international references regarding defection in the revision case, Additional Attorney General and Farooq H. Naik informed about the ongoing practice in the world regarding defection, the members of parliament inside the House. There is complete freedom of speech, if members cannot vote, it is tantamount to denying freedom of expression in Parliament.
In the current judgment, it is said that the majority decision is against the collective wisdom of the Parliament given in Article 63A, the majority judges did not consider the specific language of sub-clause four of Article 63A. In the majority decision, Canada, the United States, India and the United Kingdom Judiciary decisions were cited, it seems that they were cited without knowing the laws and results in different countries. Article 63A empowers the party leader to remove a member for going against the party policy. If the party head decides to defect, then the member must first be given a show cause notice. It is the discretionary power of the party leader to decide whether a member should defect or not, the majority of the judges who wrote the decision took this discretionary power of the party leader himself, according to the Additional Attorney General, the law of automatic disqualification is in force in Papua New Guinea. which was abolished by the Supreme Court, Article 63A of the Constitution and all its sub-clauses are clear, Article 63A does not need any interpretation, Article 63A does not say anywhere that the vote of a dissenting member shall not be counted, Article In 63 A, it is not even written that the member will be automatically de-seated if he votes against the party, these two things were written by the majority judges in their decision.