Supreme Court: The request to form a full court was rejected, the case of the election of the Chief Minister of Punjab will be heard by a 3-member bench.
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has rejected the pleas to form a full court in the case of the petition against the ruling of the Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly on the election of the Chief Minister of Punjab.
A 3-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Atta Bandyal, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar heard the petition of Pervez Elahi against the ruling of Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly in the election of the Chief Minister. The hearing was adjourned after which the court pronounced its verdict.
Delivering a brief verdict, Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial said that the court held a hearing for several hours and heard arguments on merits. .
The Chief Justice said that the Deputy Speaker will hear the rolling case on merit tomorrow at 11:30 am, he will issue the detailed reasons for not forming a full court later, this bench will hear the case.
Earlier today, at the beginning of the hearing, former President Supreme Court Bar Latif Afridi came to the rostrum and took the stand that in the current situation, all the bar councils are demanding to form a full court.
Latif Afridi said that the crises are too many, the system is under threat, a review petition on the interpretation of Article 63A should be set and a full court should be formed to deal with the constitutional crisis.
Cannot make unilateral decision: Chief Justice of Pakistan
Also read this
'Bench-fixing is a crime like match-fixing', ruling alliance demands full court
The case of Chief Minister Punjab, Hamza Shehbaz filed a petition to constitute a full court bench
5 former presidents of the Supreme Court bar demand from the Chief Justice to send the review petition to the full court
Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial remarked that you all have great respect, we are grateful to you for placing the matter before us, Afridi Sahib, this case is based on our opinion of Article 63A, we want to decide after hearing the parties. They cannot make a unilateral decision.
Justice Umar Atta Bandial said that they cannot decide on the words of 10 former presidents, it is also important to listen to the other side.
Former President Supreme Court Bar said that all the cases should be heard together by forming a full court consisting of available judges.
Seat is something to come, what is the problem of seat: Farooq H Naik
Farooq H. Naik said in the court that requests to become a party have also been filed in the case, on which the Chief Justice said that let the initial case be heard now, we will see the rest of the matters later, we will also hear you but in order. Will have to walk.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan while talking to Farooq H. Naik said that you should sit, I hope your seat will still be vacant, on which Farooq H. Naik said that the seat is something to come, what is the problem with the seat.
What is the rush?
President Supreme Court Bar Ahsan Bhavan said that they cannot even think of putting pressure on the judiciary, it would be appropriate to hear the review petition on the interpretation of Article 63A first.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan said, "What is the hurry, Mr. Bhawan, first hear the case."
Barrister Ali Zafar, the lawyer of the petitioner, said that I am also a former bar president, bar presidents should not be involved in these matters, first listen to the answers that the court asked for.
Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal inquired that where is the Deputy Speaker's lawyer? On which Dost Mohammad Mazari's lawyer Arafaq Qadir appeared in the court and he also requested to constitute a full court on the matter.
It is not my job to tell the question that is being heard, the court should decide: Irfan Qadir
Irfan Qadir said that it is an important constitutional matter, it is the right time to make a full court to remove all the ambiguities, the judges who gave the first decision are hearing the case, due to which there is anxiety, to arrive at the right decision. I will support the court.
Deputy Speaker Punjab Assembly lawyer Irfan Qadir also read out the decision of the court on July 23.
The Chief Justice said that your question is how did you get the impression of Article 63A that there was talk of a parliamentary party or head, to which Arafaq Qadir said that this question is yours on which this special bench has been constituted. The legal question is that if the position of the parliamentary party is different and the party head is different, then what will happen?
The next time the court interrupts, you will be back in your seat: Chief Justice's conversation with Irfan Qadir
Irfan Qadir said 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, but the matter is probably about the powers of the parliamentary party and party chief.
The Chief Justice directed Irfan Qadir to read Article 63A from the Constitution book and said that both the party head and the parliamentary party are mentioned in Article 63A.
Lawyer Irfan Qadir said that I am very confused as to what the question is, I do not understand exactly what the question is.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said that you should listen to the court, to which Irfan Qadir said that we can understand this matter comfortably.
Justice Ijazul Hassan said that you should first listen to what we are saying, while the Chief Justice while talking to Irfan Qadir said that I think you are having a hard time listening, next time the court interrupts, you should return to your chair. but will be
You were angry, did not come to anger the court: Advocate Dost Mazari
Irfan Qadir said that no matter how much you reprimand me, I will not reprimand. 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
Comments
Post a Comment