The country is moving towards anarchy. No one is ready to accept the decision of the Supreme Court. Farooq H Naik
The Chief Justice is angry over the statement of the PPP lawyer. The situation is not so bad. Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial
The country is heading towards anarchy.
ISLAMABAD: Justice Jamal Mandokhel, who was present in the bench while hearing the presidential reference on the interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution, remarked that the people are also aware that The decision has come. He said that whatever the leader does, the people follow him. PPP lawyer Farooq H Naik said that the 17th amendment has given immense powers to the Prime Minister and the party chief. He said that against the Prime Minister. So even the Supreme Court could not take action.
(to be continued)
The Chief Justice raised the question that if there is no confidence in the Prime Minister for the fourth year then why the reference goes to the Election Commission against the deviant members. If the term expires, no action will be taken against the deviant member.
He said that wherever the authority was excessive, it would be wrong to use it. Farooq H Naik said that in the nineties, assemblies were dissolved using the power of 58-2B. The Chief Justice said that Article 63 The purpose of A is disqualification, to which Farooq H Naik replied that Article 63A does not even mean the execution of a deviant member.
Justice Jamal Mandokhel questioned whether the Election Commission could reject the reference against the deviant members. He said that deviance is such a big crime then why voting against the Prime Minister was not banned. Led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial. A five-member bench of the Supreme Court is hearing the presidential reference regarding the interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution. He asked why political parties are neutral on party deviation.
Chief Justice said that those who deviate from the party are given second place. PPP lawyer Farooq H Naik said that democracy in Pakistan has not matured yet. Farooq H Naik argued that the 1973 constitution The purpose of Article 96 was to prevent party deviation.
He said that under this provision of the constitution, the vote of deviant member could not be counted.
The lawyer of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) said that Article 62-63 was added to the Constitution by a dictator. Jamal Khan questioned whether it was a crime to vote against the party on the voice of a member's conscience. He said that this is a crime which is allowed in the constitution. Farooq H Naik replied that these are the problems of the new democratic forces. Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that according to the American judge, PPP lawyer said that the country is currently moving towards anarchy. He said that no one is ready to accept the decision of the Supreme Court.
Stopping Farooq H Naik, the Chief Justice said that the situation is not so bad. Do not talk in general. Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan remarked that it has become a culture in our country that if the verdict is in favor then justice is done and if it is against then justice is done. went. Hearing the presidential reference regarding the interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution in the Supreme Court, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that the first thing to be decided is whether deviation is right or wrong. What will be the effects of? Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that history has shown that deviation from the party does not happen only on awakening of conscience.
He said that many western countries were trying to prevent deviation from the party. Justice Ejaz-ul-Hassan said that what would be the punishment for deviation from the party? This is the real question. The PPP lawyer said that the disqualification of the defecting member would be for the remainder of the term of the assembly. If deviation from the party is a crime then why the vote of the culprit is counted. Farooq H Naik said that case of 302 cannot be made for intent to murder. Has been postponed.
