ISLAMABAD: A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, resumed hearing of the presidential reference seeking the Supreme Court\u2019s interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution, media reported on Tuesday.<\/p>\n
PTI\u2019s lawyer Babar Awan argued that those who were defaulting on payment of their utility bills were also not eligible to become a member of the parliament.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the time period is not fixed then the disqualification will be for life,\u201d he argued.<\/p>\n
Justice Mandokhail asked whether the lawmaker would continue to remain disqualified if they paid their outstanding utility bills before the next election.<\/p>\n
Justice Ijazul Ahsan said that the members\u2019 disqualification would end once the outstanding dues are paid. Only disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) is life-long, he said.<\/p>\n
The \u201cdisqualification will remain in place until the declaration is cancelled by the court\u201d, he further said. \u201cDisqualification for the non-payment of utility bills cannot be for life,\u201d Justice Ahsan added.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt will be an affront to Article 63-A if a lawmaker was de-seated and then returned to parliament within 15 days to perhaps become a minister,\u201d Babar Awan said .<\/p>\n
\u201cCarry out law reforms, the door of repentance is always open,\u201d Justice Mandokhel said.<\/p>\n
Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel called on the counsel to read Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution. \u201cYou are asking us to declare dissident lawmakers disqualified for life,\u201d he said, to which PTI lawyer replied that it was a \u201cserious crime\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn my eyes, the violation of Article 63(1)(g) is a more serious crime,\u201d Justice Miankhel replied, adding that it concerned the ridiculing of the judiciary and the army as well as the ideology of Pakistan.<\/p>\n
During the hearing, Justice Munib Akhtar asked how Article 63-A was related to Article 62(1)(f). Awan replied that his argument was that Article 63-A itself disqualified dissident lawmakers for life.<\/p>\n
\u201cShould 26 lawmakers be allowed to abandon the party?\u201d he asked. In this way, the party with the majority would become minority, he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou want the Article 63-A to be as rigid that no lawmaker can defect,\u201d Justice Ahsan observed.<\/p>\n
Babar Awan argued that a surgical strike was added in Article 63-A under the 18th Amendment to get rid of the cancer that was defection. He added that the 18th Amendment was unanimously passed by the parliament.<\/p>\n
PTI lawyer at a point, gave the reference of the SC verdict which allowed Musharraf to amend the Constitution, adding that the powers of the court are unlimited.<\/p>\n
Awan called Supreme Court \u201cthe last hope\u201d adding that the next move was to take to the streets and stage rallies.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne says the judiciary should be independent while another says that it should be subservient to the Constitution. Parliament, the judiciary and the executive should all be subservient to the Constitution,\u201d Justice Jamal Mandokhail observed.<\/p>\n
\u201cOnly the judiciary can ensure everyone is subservient to the Constitution\u201d, Awan said. The judiciary not only interprets the Constitution but also makes laws clear with its decisions, he said.<\/p>\n
Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) lawyer Azhar Siddique, began his arguments after Babar Awan.<\/p>\n
Justice Mandokhail asked whether an independent lawmaker took an oath when joined a political party. \u201cDoes the independent lawmaker swear to abide by the party\u2019s each and every decision?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n
\u201cWho will decide what is the role of a person,\u201d Justice Jamal Khan further asked. \u201cThe constitution has authorized the party\u2019s head to determine the member\u2019s character,\u201d Azhar Siddique said.<\/p>\n
He said British parliament members resign even if suspected of indulging in corruption worth a mere one pound. Here, those disqualified by our courts are not ready to accept the verdict, he said.<\/p>\n
Justice Jamal Mandokhail stated that Article 63-A provides a forum for taking action against dissident members. Siddique added that dissident lawmakers could also not cast their vote.<\/p>\n
Justice Mandokhail observed that the punishment under Article 63-A was to rescind the membership of the dissident member. \u201cDo you want an increase in the punishment for a defecting member?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n
PML-Q lawyer replied that his argument did not concern the extension in the lawmaker\u2019s punishment. \u201cArticle 63-A is a protective wall against a no-confidence motion,\u201d he argued.<\/p>\n
\u201cHow a defecting member being punished, when his vote will not be counted,\u201d Justice Mandokhel asked.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt has become a tradition to overthrow a government with money,\u201d Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked. \u201cThe future of 220 million people is put at stake with the buying and selling of a few people,\u201d he said. \u201cThis tradition should come to an end,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
PML-Q lawyer also given reference of the \u2018Charter of Democracy\u2019. \u201cIf the parliament was agreed over it, the \u2018Charter of Democracy\u2019 had become a part of the constitution,\u201d Justice Mandokhel remarked.<\/p>\n
\u201cThose involved in corruption facing departmental as well as criminal proceedings,\u201d the lawyer said. \u201cWouldn\u2019t it be appropriate that the punitive action initiated after the charges of horse trading and corruption proved,\u201d Justice Mandokhel asked. \u201cProving corruption and defection are two different things,\u201d the counsel replied.<\/p>\n