ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) has unanimously overturned its earlier judgment regarding the interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution.
A 5-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa heard the revision appeals related to the interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution.
The bench, which also included Justices Jamal Mandukhel, Naeem Afghan, Aminuddin, and Mazhar Alam, heard the revision petitions.
During the proceedings, PTI lawyer Ali Zafar boycotted the hearing, raising concerns over the formation of the bench.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan while pronouncing the decision of the review appeal said that the review appeal of the Supreme Court Bar Association is unanimously approved. The detailed decision of the case will be issued later.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa said that Justice Mazhar Alam’s dissenting note on the case of interpretation of Article 63A issued on July 30 while the majority of the bench issued the detailed judgment on October 14. He observed that the Justice Mazhar Alam was aware of his responsibilities.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail remarked that the majority decision said that there is a difference between voting and being counted, is the difference between voting and being counted written in the constitution.
The Additional Attorney General told the court that the decision on Article 63A is full of contradictions, on the one hand, it said vote is a fundamental right, while also abolishing the fundamental right at the direction of the party.
Pakistan People’s Party lawyer Farooq H. Naek said that according to the Hasba Bill case, the person who asked for an opinion on the reference should be restricted.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan inquired if the President of the State does not follow the opinion, can action be taken against him. On which Farooq H. Naek said that the court cannot take action against the President.
Lawyer Farooq H. Naek said that the decision of the minority judges in the 63A case was issued first.
[embedpost slug=”sc-rejects-ptis-objection-to-bench-hearing-article-63-a-review-petition”]
