Justice Mandokhel questions rationale of debate on ‘disqualification’

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel has observed that there is no mention of the word ‘disqualification’ in Article 63-A in the Constitution and only the word of termination from party membership exits there. He remarked if there was no disqualification then there should be no need for any further debate, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.

A five-judge larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJP Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel was hearing the presidential reference that seeks interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution of Pakistan and Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) plea against political rallies in the federal capital on Tuesday.

During the hearing, Justice Mandokhel questioned the rationale of the proceedings saying if the constitution does not mention ‘disqualification’ then there should not be any further arguments. He wondered whether differing (from something) meant negation! The justice put the onus on the Election Commission that it would launch an inquiry whether negation of the party discipline had taken place or not. 

Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that there was no need of any proof in case of Article 63-A. Only the party head would submit declaration of disqualification. The violation of party discipline does not happen by mistake, it’s a deliberate act, the judge said adding that to determine the disqualification for life, we had to make lots of flips. 

Justice Munib remarked that Article 63-A does not mention lifelong disqualification, it mentions only temporary disqualification. But lifelong disqualification takes place when a false declaration is submitted, the justice remarked. 

He wondered if the parliament would make a law that a member would be disqualified for five years on filing a false declaration, would it be regarded as null and void. He observed that there were different verdicts on the application and consequences of Article 62 (1) F. 

Justice Mandokhel remarked that the party head was entitled to get the point of view of the member of assembly after issuing him a show-cause notice. He said the court should not punish an innocent man, no matter if 100 culprits escaped the law. 

While giving his arguments, Attorney General of Pakistan Khalid Jawed Khan said that ‘thief is thief. We cannot say he is a good thief and the other one is a bad thief’. 

He said that violation of party discipline was not a usual political activity. The tenure of assembly has been specified in the constitution but not the tenure of parliamentarians. As soon as the assembly is dissolved, the membership of the MP exhausts too. The MPs’ membership is linked to the term of the assembly. The objective of Article 63-A is not fulfilled till the expiry of assembly’s term. It’s objective could only be achieved if the lifelong disqualification will be imposed, argued the AGP. 

He emphasized that if the declaration was made, then the Article 62 (1) F would be invoked against the dissident member. 

AG objects to 'illegal' JUI sit-in 

The Islamabad AG said that the JUI was allowed to hold rally for two days only but the party workers still had blocked the highway after staging a sit-in. 

On this, JUI lawyer Kamran Murtaza said that the JUI did not stage a sit-in. He said police closed the road. He said that the rally participants were going back when a man was hit by a speeding bus and died while another got injured last night. He said the workers protested the man’s death and the administration closed the road. 

PM’s remarks against judiciary during Kamalia rally explained 

The AGP told the court that during yesterday’s hearing the judges objected to Prime Minister Imran Khan’s speech delivered in Kamalia. He said he talked with the premier in this regard and the prime minister explained that his reference was in the background of 1997 attack on the Supreme Court. The AGP said that PM Khan had full confidence in the judiciary. 

SC orders IG police to submit report on Sindh House attack tomorrow 

At the outset of the hearing, Chief Justice Ata Bandial asked about the progress regarding attack on the Sindh House. 

The Islamabad advocate general told the court that the administration had submitted an application to the magistrate for cancellation of the bails granted to the accused. He said after cancellation of bails, the police would re-arrest the accused adding that they had already obtained arrest warrants for them from the court. 

The court, however, directed the Islamabad IG police to again submit a report on the Sindh House attack tomorrow. 

Earlier, the IG police submitted a report on the attack. The report said that police did not find any proof of terrorism against the accused, nor could they recover any weapons from their possession. If police get proof of terrorism, then further action would be taken against them, the report read. 

The report said, out of 16 accused, one Rai Tanveer could not be arrested. Police are conducting raids for Tanveer’s arrest. However, all arrested accused have got bails from the judicial magistrate, the report said adding that magistrate has been approached for cancellation of their bails. 

  

Reporter Amanat Gishkori