Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated on Tuesday that the violation of Article 63(1)(g) was a more serious crime because it involved mocking the judiciary, the army, and Pakistan’s ideology.
He made those remarks during a hearing on a presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution, which deals with the disqualification of legislators for defection.
The presidential reference was heard by a five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court (SC), led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial.
The bench also included Justices Ijazul Ahsan, Mazhar Alam, and Munib Akhtar.
During the hearing, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Babar Awan made arguments on behalf of party chairman Imran Khan. He contended that those who did not pay their utility bills were also ineligible to become members of Parliament.
“If the time period is not determined,” he contended, “the disqualification is for life.”
At this point, Justice Mandokhail asked if the legislator would still be disqualified if they paid their outstanding utility bills before the next election.
The lawmakers’ disqualification, according to Justice Ahsan, will end once the outstanding dues are paid. “Only disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) — which requires a member of Parliament to be ‘honest and righteous’ — is life-long,” Justice Ahsan noted.
“The disqualification will remain in effect until the court cancels the declaration.” “The disqualification for failure to pay utility bills cannot be permanent,” he added.
“It is a violation of Article 63-A if a lawmaker is de-seated and then returns to Parliament within 15 days to possibly become a minister,” he said.
Justice Mandokhail directed the counsel to read Constitutional Article 63(1)(g).
“You want us to declare dissident lawmakers ineligible for life.” “he told Babar Awan.
“It is a serious offense,” Awan responded.
“In my opinion, violating Article 63(1)(g) is a more serious offence.” It is about mocking the judiciary and the army, as well as Pakistan’s ideology,” said Justice Mandokhail.
During the hearing, Justice Akhtar asked, “How is Article 63-A related to Article 62(1)(f)?”
Awan responded that Article 63-A itself rendered dissident lawmakers ineligible for life.
“Should 26 legislators be allowed to leave the party?” As a result, the party with the majority will become the minority,” he noted.
“You want the (interpretation of) Article 63-A to be so strict that no legislator can defect,” Justice Ahsan told Babar Awan.
“A surgical strike’ was inserted in Article 63-A under the 18th Amendment to get rid of cancer that was a defection,” PTI counsel argued.
“The 18th Amendment was passed unanimously by Parliament,” he added.
“The Supreme Court is ‘the last hope,’ and the next step will be to take to the streets and hold rallies,” he said.
“One side believes the judiciary should be independent, while the other believes it should be subservient to the Constitution.” The Constitution should be the supreme authority over Parliament, the judiciary, and the executive “Justice Mandokhail made a remark.
“Only the judiciary can ensure that everyone obeys the Constitution,” Awan said.
“With its decisions, the judiciary not only interprets the Constitution but also clarifies the law,” he added.
Azhar Siddique, the lawyer for the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q), began his arguments after Babar Awan.
“The British lawmakers resign even if they are suspected of a pound of corruption,” he told the court.
“On the other hand,” he said, “those disqualified by our courts for not being Sadiq and Ameen are refusing to accept the verdict.”
