Not bothered by recent campaigns against judges, says CJP Bandial
CJP says judiciary are guardians of Constitution, asks need for judgments if they are to be ‘criticised’ in rallies
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial observed on Monday that the recent campaigns being run against judges did not bother them as they consider protecting and preserving the Constitution their duty, adding that the court functions 24 hours in this regard.
The CJP also expressed hope for the apex court’s judgments to be respected.
Justice Bandial’s remarks came as a five-judge larger SC bench resumed hearing on the presidential reference concerning the interpretation and scope of Article 63(A), filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against dissident lawmakers’ defections.
“We expect the political leaders to have the courage to defend the judgment,” the chief justice said, questioning the point of the court’s intervention in political crises “if 5,000 to 10,000 people are eventually going to gather and start criticising their judgments and not accept them”.
“Why should we announce judgments?” Justice Bandial asked. The chief justice went on to add that the judges were the guardians of the Constitution.
“I am requesting political parties to defend the parliamentary form of system,” the CJP maintained.
Read Article 63-A does not mention lifetime disqualification, says SC
A member of the bench, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked why the court should step in if the parliament did not mention lifetime disqualification in the Constitution on account of defecting lawmakers.
‘No mention of disqualification’
Hearing the case on March 28, the SC had observed that Article 63-A of the Constitution did not mention lifetime disqualification as it only referred to temporary disqualification (de-seating) in case of violation.
During the hearing on the presidential reference, former attorney general Khalid Jawed Khan had argued that defection was no ordinary political activity, adding that the Constitution mentioned the tenure of an assembly, not of lawmakers.
According to the AGP, lawmakers’ membership ends in case of the dissolution of the assembly.
He said the purpose of Article 63-A will be fulfilled with lifetime disqualification and the law would not serve its purpose by de-seating lawmakers till the completion of the assembly’s tenure. The then government’s lawyer said that in case of a declaration, Article 62(1)(f) will be applied to the dissenting lawmaker.
At this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked whether disagreement meant dissent as per the AGP, to which Khan replied in the negative.
Justice Mandokhail said Article 63-A referred to de-seating, not disqualification. He added that there was no need for further discussion when there was no mention of disqualification.
