ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial praised the people who stood up for the Constitution and the judiciary at a time when “some forces tried to subvert institutions for political motives”.

“There are many people who stand up for the Constitution and this bench stood up for the Constitution,” the CJP said in response to an observation by PPP Senator Raza Rabbani that a number of politicians were vilifying the Supreme Court for its verdict in the deputy speaker’s ruling case.

Raza Rabbani asked the Supreme Court bench to bear in mind the events that unfolded soon after filing of the presidential reference, when “every constitutional functionary violated and circumvented” the constitutional process.

“As if this were not enough, each violation was held up as an example for others to follow.” Raza Rabbani went on to say it was becoming difficult to defend this document (Constitution) as “civilian hordes are out to desecrate institutions functioning under the Constitution”.

Intolerance leads to fascism, warns Raza Rabbani

“When such things happen, history tells us the eventual outcome is either the Soviet Union or a fascist state,” the former Senate chairman observed.

The CJP, who heads a five-judge Supreme Court bench hearing the presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63A, asked Mr Rabbani not to be so pessimistic.

“When people like him have faith in the Constitution, there is nothing to worry about,” the CJP observed. “Criticism hurts, but it’s unfortunate all the same that tolerance of dissent is vanishing. But the truth will prevail eventually. And this institution (judiciary) is here to provide justice to all.”

Chief Justice Umar Bandial was all praise for the PPP for its “fortitude in the face of heavy odds and for upholding the Constitution at all times”.

Political wilderness

Citing his own example, he said resignation from a party consigns a person to political wilderness. “This is no small matter.”

The bench had earlier made observations that a member who wished not to support certain directions of a parliamentary party head should have the courage to resign the seat and contest by-elections. “We have the example of a prime minister who violated the Cnstitution, but did not exercise the option of resignation,” Raza Rabbani regretted. “Resignation exacts a very heavy price.”

During the hearing, Justice Munib Akhtar also asked Mr Rabbani about the circumstances which led to his vote in favour of military courts while passing the Constitution 21st Amendment.

“Would the member liken it to Khayanat (betrayal) if he had not voted,” Justice Akhtar wondered.

Raza Rabbani explained that he did not have the moral courage to face the second aftermath (of being in political wilderness).

At this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel observed that being a senator he was not elected directly and, therefore, not answerable to his constituents.

Justice Mandokhel also inquired about the consequence of violating the Constitution, wondering whether every such act would entail disqualification for life. Mr Rabbani explained that a genuine political worker or lower or upper middle class professional did not have the same nuisance value as an aristocrat had and it would be end of his political career if he resigns.

Barrister Ali Zafar argued that defection by a member was a breach of trust because it was akin to dishonesty and, therefore, Article 62(1)(f), which asks

for a life-time ban, becomes applicable. He suggested that if members of a parliamentary party vote contrary to the directions of the party, the votes should not be counted at all for the purpose of a resolution for a vote of no confidence.

Published in Dawn, April 22nd, 2022