Article 63A review plea: SC delves on vote counting and no-confidence motion

ISLAMABAD: The 5-member larger bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Isa heard the revision plea of Article 63A today. The bench including Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Mandokhail, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel along with the Chief Justice.

At the start of the hearing, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar objected to the reconstitution of the bench, but Chief Justice Isa instructed him to refrain from raising objections and take his seat, stating that Zafar would have the opportunity to present his arguments later. “We want to run things smoothly,” remarked the Chief Justice.

SC begins Article 63A hearing; PTI’s counsel objects to bench once again

Later, the Chief Justice went on to explain that he had written to Justice Muneeb Akhtar and invited Justice Mansoor Ali Shah to join the bench, but Shah declined. “I don’t want to disturb other benches,” he noted, before adding that Justice Naeem Afghan had been appointed to the complete the larger bench.

Supreme Court Bar Association President Shahzad Shaukat commenced his arguments by recalling the timeline of events in March 2022, when the Supreme Court Bar filed an application and a presidential reference containing four legal questions was submitted.

Chief Justice Isa asked whether both the reference and the petitions under Article 184(3) could be heard together. Shaukat was reminded by the Chief Justice to refrain from discussing political matters and focus on the legal questions.

The Chief Justice then emphasised that the presidential reference and the Article 184(3) petitions fall under different jurisdictions, clarifying that a reference can only seek an opinion, not a binding judgment. He questioned how these two distinct legal avenues had been combined in the previous proceedings.

Article 63A case: Justice Naeem Akhtar appointed to complete bench

Justice Isa also expressed surprise that the same government that filed the reference – then led by PTI with President Arif Alvi in office – had been both the petitioner and respondent in the case. Shaukat proceeded to read Article 63A, prompting further inquiries from the bench regarding the legal questions raised by the President.

The Chief Justice critically examined the decision made in the case, particularly questioning whether it mandated automatic disqualification for those whose votes were not counted in line with party policy. Shaukat confirmed that the party leader holds discretion over disqualification, while the Additional Attorney General clarified that the ruling did not specify immediate disqualification for defying party directives.

The Chief Justice sought answers to the conflict between both cases, saying that the constitution has detailed directions for the no-confidence motion the prime minister and the chief ministers.

SC adjourns Article 63A hearing after Justice Muneeb’s no-show

He said that if the votes were not to be counted in such cases, then the entire article 95 of the disqualification of the prime minister will become non-functional. In such cases, then where the constitution is already clear on something, how can something else be included in it.

Later, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of the Article 63A revision case till tomorrow, with the Chief Justice saying that the arguments of the remaining lawyers will be heard tomorrow.