KARACHI: After the Supreme Court turned down a coalition request to form a full-court bench to hear the case against Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Dost Muhammad Mazari’s ruling, legal experts remained split on whether the matter warranted closer scrutiny or not.

Several legal minds suggested on Monday that one way to draw the country out of the quagmire that is threatening its political and economic stability is for the apex court to revise its judgment in the presidential reference for the interpretation of Article 63A, to not count the votes of lawmakers who violated party policy.

Talking to Samaa TV, noted lawyer Salman Akram Raja said that the current crisis wouldn’t have occurred had the court not ordered the discounting of votes by lawmakers who violated party policy.

While referring to review petitions filed against the verdict, Mr Raja said the court could revise its judgement, but the possibility of this happening was bleak, since the same judges who had issued the earlier verdict, would hear the review petitions.

Legal experts say apex court should revise its view on Article 63A; insist that ‘boycotting proceedings’ would not help PDM cause

Similar sentiments were echoed by retired Justice Shaiq Usmani, who said that the court should revise its interpretation of the article in question and the ambiguities raised by the decision should be removed. While talking to ARY News, he advised the court to club the review petitions and applications filed by 20 PTI MPAs who were de-seated and then form a full court bench to hear the petitions.

PPP leader and eminent lawyer Sardar Latif Khosa said that the roles of the parliamentary party and party head were clearly defined in Article 63A and called the 3-2 verdict of the court “tantamount to rewriting the Constitution”.

However, he added that Mr Mazari erred in interpreting the judgment when he disregarded those votes during the run-off election.

No need for a full court bench

Talking to DawnNews, legal expert Asad Rahim said the case under consideration did not merit a full-court hearing.

“There is no conflict or a clash of precedent, neither is it a complex constitutional question or a legal crisis,” Mr Rahim elaborated.

He added that the only point to be decided in the case was whether Punjab Assembly deputy speaker ruling to disregard the votes cast by PML-Q members was legal or not.

Supreme Court Advocate Barrister Abid Zuberi, while talking to DawnNews, said that although every party has a right to demand the formation of a full-court bench, the discretion to constitute benches lies with the chief justice.

Mr Khosa was also of the opinion that the three-member bench currently hearing the case should continue as “there was no ambiguity” that warrants the constitution of a full court bench.

Boycott won’t impact the case

On the issue of the boycott of proceedings, as indicated by Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah in his remarks outside the SC building on Monday, Mr Zuberi said the court wouldn’t be bothered by a boycott and will still decide the case.

“These things won’t matter in the court as it has to examine the facts and decide if Mr Mazari’s ruling was in the light of the June 17 verdict.” Mr Zuberi added.

Mr Usmani also said that there was no boycott in courts and once a lawyer appears in the court, the presence of their party is marked.

“After [appearing in court] a lawyer could say that they have been instructed by their client not to pursue the case and can urge the court to put their client on notice again,” Mr Usmani added.

Former PTI leader and keen legal mind, Hamid Khan, told ARY News that the language used by the members of the ruling coalition against the judiciary was “inappropriate” and an “attempt to pressurise the judges”.

He advised the court to “ignore the pressure” and decide the case on its merits.

Published in Dawn, July 26th, 2022