During a recent hearing on Article 63A, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa declared that nothing happens behind closed doors in the Supreme Court anymore.
The five-member larger bench, led by CJP Isa, is reviewing the case, which includes Justices Aminuddin, Jamal Khan Mandukhel, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Mazhar Alam.
At the hearing’s outset, Supreme Court Bar Association President Shahzad Shaukat and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Ali Zafar approached the rostrum.
CJP Isa inquired about developments since the previous day and noted that Justice Munib Akhtar declined to join the bench again.
He proposed including Justice Mansoor Ali Shah in the committee, but he also refused. As a result, the bench proceeded without further additions.
When PTI lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar raised objections, the Chief Justice instructed him to wait his turn for a response.
Zafar objected to the bench’s composition, but the Chief Justice emphasized that the party filing the revision has the right to argue first.
He urged the PTI representatives to respect the democratic process, reminding them of the president of their own Bar Association standing before the court.
President Shahzad Shaukat then began outlining the case’s background, explaining that it involves a presidential reference along with 3/184 petitions.
CJP Isa remarked that the court must treat the opinion on the reference and the 3/184 petitions as separate matters, questioning how they could combine them for a decision.
He clarified that the court can issue only opinions regarding the presidential reference and that failing to follow these opinions does not warrant contempt proceedings against the President.
When asked who was president during the events in question, Shaukat confirmed it was Dr. Arif Alvi. CJP Isa noted that the same government was also a petitioner in the case.
Shaukat then read Article 63A, prompting the Chief Justice to ask what legal questions the President had raised. He responded that the President posed four questions, including one about treason under Article 63A.
CJP Isa further questioned whether the court’s opinion addressed the President’s inquiries, to which Shaukat responded that it did not.
The Chief Justice then asked if the reference’s ethics question was valid, and Shaukat asserted that the court had ruled that the votes of dissenting members cannot be counted, which related to the conscience of a member.
CJP Isa instructed the counsel to focus on the essential facts of the case, questioning the significance of the term “cancer” used in the reference. He asked if its absence would diminish the reference’s impact.
The Additional Attorney General clarified that votes from defecting members would not count, stating that an order for de-seating was not included in the decision.
CJP Isa pointed out the Constitution’s clarity regarding the no-confidence motion, Prime Minister and Chief Minister elections, and the definition of a Money Bill. He questioned how one could add to a clear constitutional text.
CJP Isa asked the Supreme Court Bar President to specify his objections to the decision, and Shaukat stated their objection was to the majority ruling.
Justice Isa queried where it was written that a member would be disqualified if their vote was not counted, indicating that the decision leaves disqualification to the discretion of the party leader.
Shaukat affirmed that the matter would conclude based on the party chief’s decision regarding disqualification.
