ISLAMABAD – Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial onTuesday constituted a five-member larger bench to hear thepresidential reference seeking the apex court’s opinion on Article63-A and a petition of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
The larger bench headed by the CJP and comprising Justice Ijaz UlAhsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Muneeb Akhtar andJustice Jamal Khan Mandokhel will hear the presidential referenceseeking interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution and theSCBA petition for restraining political parties from holding publicmeetings in Islamabad before voting on the no-confidence motion onMarch 24.
According to the written order of the apex court�s hearing held onMonday, the Inspector General of Police, Islamabad had filed a reportin relation to the incident at the Sindh House. The IGP assured thatstrict measures were being taken to avoid any repetition of such anincident anywhere in the Red Zone in relation to the moving and votingupon of the no-confidence motion.
The IGP stated that the FIR (first information report) alreadyregistered would be vigorously pursued in accordance with law. The Advocate General Sindh expressed strong reservations as to theFIR and desired for the province�s version to be put on the record.The Advocate General Islamabad assured that any representation made bythe province through the Advocate General would be dealt with inaccordance with law.
The SCBA counsel stated that the political parties had filed theno-confidence resolution, and expressed strong reservations andconcerns that the speaker had summoned the session of the NationalAssembly requisitioned by the said parties for March 25, which wasbeyond the stipulated 14 days period. “Our attention has been drawn to order issued by the speaker in thisregard. We are not inclined to take up this matter as it is collateralto the questions of constitutional interpretation raised before thecourt not only in terms of CP 2/2022 but also the reference filed bythe President today in terms of Article 186 (Reference 1/2022). In anyevent, for such matters the Constitution envisages a remedy beforeParliament itself,” the court order read.
Read Top Stories
The order stated that the Attorney General had made a categoricalstatement before the court that the Federal Government would not inany manner hinder or obstruct, or interfere with, any members of theNational Assembly (including those of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf)who wish to attend the session summoned as above, and to participatein, and cast their votes, on the no confidence resolution. Regarding the �grave concerns� expressed about political rallies inIslamabad and the influx of supporters into the Federal Capital andespecially in the Red Zone, the AGP suggested that representatives ofthe political parties sit with Islamabad�s administration and work outa mechanism to the holding of rallies, as well as their days andvenues. The apex court dubbed this a reasonable and practicalsuggestion.
The written order stated that counsel for various political partiesaccepted the suggestion, but highlighted that the counsel for PPP,PML-N and JUI-F have expressed reservations as to whether any fruitfuloutcome will be achieved. However, the order said that the counselmaintained that good faith effort would be made by all. The court directed the AGP to coordinate with the political parties�counsel to arrange the meetings with the administration on an urgentbasis as suggested by him.
The order stated that the court was cognizant that the matter wastime-constrained and directed all counsel to file concise statementsof their submissions by or before March 24, so that the oral hearingcould be completed within an acceptable timeframe. The court stated that the two matters would be heard together. �Forthis purpose notice is issued to the petitioner SCBA. Notices are alsoissued in relation to the Reference to the political parties who arebefore us in terms of our previous order.”
