976972 125751 updates

CJP Bandiyal will quickly pronounce verdict in Punjab Chief Minister’s election matter


ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Chief Justice Omar Ata Bandiyal on Tuesday stated that the court docket will quickly pronounce its verdict within the Punjab chief minister’s election case.

CJP stated this after completion of the arguments of the petitioner.

The PML-Q had on Saturday filed a petition in opposition to the choice of Punjab Deputy Speaker Dost Mazari, which had paved the way in which for Hamza Shahbaz to retain the put up of chief minister of the province.

A 3-judge bench of the apex court docket headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandiyal and Justices Ahsan and Justices Muneeb Akhtar heard the matter.

At the beginning of at the moment’s listening to, CJP Bandiyal stated Article 63(a) of the Constitution explicitly states that parliamentary get together instructs MPs – and the formation of a full court docket – nothing greater than “delay the matter”. was not.

“The formation of the full court and then the hearing of the case could have been delayed till September as the judges are on leave.”

During the proceedings, Deputy Speaker Mazari’s counsel, Irfan Qadir, advised the bench that his consumer has directed him to not be part of the proceedings.

Qadir advised the Supreme Court that he would problem the apex court docket’s resolution to represent a full court docket to listen to the PML-Q petition.

After Qadir, PPP’s lawyer Farooq H Naik got here on stage and knowledgeable the CJP that he wouldn’t be part of the proceedings.

To this the CJP advised him that he was “not a party to the case”.

The CJP stated that “no legal basis” was offered earlier than the court docket; Arguments had been offered solely with respect to the directions of the get together chief; The court docket got here to the conclusion that there was no want for a full bench within the current case.

CJP Bandiyal stated that the actual query is who may give directions to the get together MPs. The Constitution clearly states that the Parliamentary Party will give instructions to the MPs.

“There is no need for further debate in this matter. We will give priority to finish this matter at the earliest.

Meanwhile, the apex court sought assistance in the matter relating to the directions given by the party chief or parliamentary party to the MPs.

“Help the court on legal questions or we will recuse ourselves from the bench,” CJP Bandiyal told Barrister Ali Zafar, Elahi’s lawyer.

“Those sitting on my right have unanimously decided to boycott the court proceedings,” he said, adding that he thankfully had enough grace to sit in court to hear the proceedings.

In his arguments, Zafar said that the petitions filed against the 21st Amendment were dismissed in the full court by a ratio of 13/4.

However, several judges wrote different reasons for dismissing the petitions, he said.

Zafar told the court that the constitution stipulates that the parliamentary party will give directions to the MPs about voting.

To this, the CJP questioned whether the party chief and the parliamentary party were two separate entities.

“Yes they are,” replied Zafar.

Justice Ahsan then said, as per the Constitution, the party head ensures the implementation of the decisions taken by the parliamentary party.

The CJP said that the parliamentary party does not take unilateral decisions. “Parliamentary party is informed of the decision of the party, and based on that, takes this decision.”

During the proceedings, Justice Ahsan questioned, “Where is the word Leader of Parliament used?”

PML-Q’s counsel replied that the term “parliamentary party” has been used in the Political Parties Order 2002.

Justice Ahsan remarked, the word “Parliamentary Leader” instead of “Parliamentary Party” is just a mistake.

Seeking the definition of “party chief”, Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked, “Is the party chief only the head of a political party?”

Ali Zafar responded that former President Pervez Musharraf had replaced the law of party chief with that of parliamentary party chief, however, the law was abolished in the 18th Amendment.

CJP sought concrete reason for full court

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment yesterday, in which the apex court dismissed the coalition government’s plea seeking a full court bench in the CM Punjab election matter, CJP Bandiyal said, “I will change my opinion only if there is a concrete Reasons will be given.”

Thereafter, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Amir Rahman came on stage and said that he wanted to present some suggestions before the court.

“Has the federal government decided to distance itself from the coalition government?” CJP asked

The AAG told the top judge that he would assist the court under Article 27.

To this, the CJP extended an open invitation to the court to assist in reaching a fair and just decision in the high-profile case.

Justice Ahsan asked whether the letter was read before the parliamentary party before voting for the award or whether the party legislators were unaware of it.

“The question before the court is whether [party’s] Whether the judgment was read properly or not,” the decide stated.

The court docket then took a break for an hour and stated the listening to would resume at 2:30 pm.

Ayesha Gulalai case

After the listening to resumed, former Punjab Advocate General Ahmed Owais began his arguments.

Owais stated, “I need to apprise the Supreme Court about a number of issues. The Chief Minister’s matter has been in dialogue for 3 months. Let me inform the court docket that the members of the Q-League knew whom to vote for.”

He urged the court to review not only the incidents that happened during the election but also the incidents before that.

Referring to the verdict in the case of former PTI MLA Ayesha Gulalai, Ali Zafar said the court has laid down the procedure for the direction of the party chief.

To this Justice Ahsan remarked that the court had pronounced its judgment against your client in that case.

The lawyer said that the verdict in that case was against my client but according to the Constitution.

In the Ayesha Gulalai case it is written that who will give instructions? asked the cjp

In this case it is declared that the party chief or the person nominated by him can file a reference to disqualification, replied the counsel.

The CJP then said that the transfer of power takes place through the party chief and there is no doubt that the head office plays an important role, but at the same time, the parliamentary party gives directions for voting.

‘Government runs because it doesn’t have logic’

Minutes before the proceedings of the case began, PTI leader Fawad Chaudhry said that the government preferred to run away from the matter as they did not have arguments to support their claim.

Criticizing the ruling coalition, Fawad said, “The authorities doesn’t acknowledge the Supreme Court of Pakistan.”

Appreciating the Supreme Court’s decision on the demand for a full court bench in the Punjab CM election matter, the PTI leader said, “Such issues are solely heard by senior judges the world over.”

He said that Hamza Shahbaz should have resigned as the Chief Minister of Punjab after the bypoll results. He said that he should have rectified his mistakes.

The former information minister said democracy flourishes when the loser accepts his defeat as he criticized the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) for its unacceptable attitude towards the apex court.

“PDM ought to settle for the decision of the individuals. This matter mustn’t have come right here, there shouldn’t be a political burden on the Supreme Court,” he said.

Fawad said the CJP should not be burdened and the judiciary should be allowed to function independently.

Full Court’s petition dismissed

A day earlier, the Supreme Court had dismissed a plea seeking formation of a full court bench on the petitions related to the re-election of the Punjab Chief Minister.

The request for the full bench was made by the ruling coalition during the hearing of a petition filed by PML-Q leader Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, challenging the decision of Dost Mohammad Mazari, in which the vote of 10 members of the PML-Q was in his favour. was dismissed and Hamza Shahbaz was declared CM. Elections on 22nd July.

During the proceedings, Justice Umar Ata Bandiyal observed that he has reduced the burden of pending cases. The judges of the Supreme Court were working hard and diligently reducing the backlog of cases and hearing cases sitting in different registries.

He said the court gave an opportunity to all the parties in the case to present their arguments.

The top judge said that there is a direction from the party chief in this matter and it remains to be seen whether the party chief can reverse the decision of the parliamentary party or not. He said that a parliamentary party represented the common people in the assembly.

Announcement of boycott of ruling coalition

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to continue hearing on the election of Punjab Chief Minister with the existing three-member bench, the ruling coalition decided to boycott the hearing scheduled for today.

JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman while addressing a press conference at the Prime Minister’s residence said that if the Supreme Court does not make a full court, we will [PDM] Will also set aside all the decisions of the judiciary as we will not appear before this three-member bench.

“We boycott the proceedings of the apex court docket,” Fazal declared, adding that the coalition government does not want any institution to interfere in its affairs.

Fazal, who is also the head of the PDM, said the government’s coalition advisers advised the jury in accordance with the constitution. “The apex court docket, nonetheless, thought-about our demand impartially and dismissed our petition.”

‘Fear of Contradiction’

Earlier, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision, PML-N Vice-President Maryam Nawaz on her Twitter account said that there was only one reason for not creating a full-fledged court – “worry”.

The PML-N veteran wrote, “Afraid of contradicting his personal resolution.”

Stating that she was “nearly sure” that a full court would not be formed, Maryam said that when decisions are not taken in accordance with the Constitution, law and justice, the formation of a full court is “thought-about harmful.”

Additional enter from APP.


Source link

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *