ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, during the case related to the reserved seats of the Sunni Unity Council, remarked that when the words of the Constitution are clear, what is the scope of our interpretation, have we become wiser or smarter than the Parliament.
The full court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faiz Isa is hearing the case.
Faisal Siddiqui, the lawyer of the Sunni Ittehad Council, continued his arguments and said that the court must give a progressive interpretation of the Constitution. There is a document. The Chief Justice of Pakistan said that tell what is written in the constitution.
Justice Aminuddin Khan said that also tell about the method of joining political parties of a member. The Chief Justice remarked that if we ignore the natural meaning of the Constitution, why should we do so?
The lawyer Sunni Ittehad Council said that the real issue is the purpose of the constitutional provisions. Sits Jamal Khan Mandukhel said that why should special seats be given to those who did not bother to contest the election.
Justice Irfan Saadat Khan said that with your arguments only the words given in the constitution will become ineffective, Sunni Ittehad Council is not a political party at all. Justice Athar Manullah said that after the removal of the election symbol, there is no political party, but the political party is an unlisted political party, the Election Commission has declared it as an unlisted party.
The Chief Justice remarked that if PTI still exists as a political party, why did he join another party, if this argument is accepted as true, why did he commit suicide by joining another party? This goes against your own arguments.
Justice Shahid Waheed said that read sub-clause two of Rule 92 of the Election Commission. Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that the election commission declared independent candidates, but the application of the election commission’s opinion is not mandatory for us, the basis of parliamentary democracy is political parties, the election commission declared PTI candidates as independent candidates due to the Supreme Court decision. This is a very dangerous interpretation.
Justice Aminuddin Khan said that all the candidates were from PTI, the facts are contradictory.
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqui argued that specific seats can only be given under the system of proportional representation and there is no concept of allotting specific seats apart from the system of proportional representation, specific seats are the right of political parties and not candidates. On the one hand, the Election Commission says that an independent candidate can join any political party, and on the other hand, the Election Commission is of the opinion that joining can only be in a party in the Parliament. This interpretation of the Election Commission is tantamount to suicide.
Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa remarked that the court is not bound by the Election Commission and your interpretation but is bound by the words written in the Constitution, it is possible that the court agrees with the interpretation of the Election Commission and not with your interpretation.
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqui said that the question is whether the party that did not participate in the election can get specific seats or not. The Chief Justice remarked that you are trying to say that the court should not interpret the meaning of the words in the constitution, to which the lawyer said that the court should look not only at the meaning but also at the purpose of the provisions of the constitution.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel said that how can specific seats be given to a party which did not even bother to contest the election. Justice Aminuddin Khan asked whether independent members can establish a new political party.
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqui said that if independent members can register a political party in three days, then they can definitely join it. The Chief Justice remarked that you say it is not necessary for a political party to get a seat in the elections.
Justice Athar Manullah said that there is nothing to do with the specific seats not having election symbols, the Election Commission admits that both PTI and Sunni Ittehad Council are registered parties. The Chief Justice inquired that PTI is a registered party, so why independent members did not join it? Didn’t independent members commit political suicide by not joining PTI?
The Chief Justice of Pakistan remarked that your arguments are a conflict of interest, whether you represent Sunni Etihad Council or PTI, we have only to see what the Constitution says, we will not see what the Election Commission has done. What, went to the doctrine and then went to the Sunni Ittehad Council, you are only representing the Sunni Ittehad Council.
Vakil Sunni Ittehad Council said that there is no choice for the affected parties in this country. The Chief Justice remarked that don’t talk about politics, there have been great judges in the country who refused to take oath under the PCO, just stick to the constitution.
The lawyer Sunni Ittehad Council said that the election symbol was taken away the night before. The Chief Justice said that you are representing the Sunni Ittehad Council, what is the election symbol of the Sunni Ittehad Council, to which the lawyer said that the election symbol of the Sunni Ittehad Council is a horse.
The Chief Justice remarked that the electoral symbol of the Sunni Unity Council was not taken. Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel said that if the Election Commission declared the candidates independent, why did they not file an appeal. The lawyer Sunni Ittehad Council said that this question will be answered by Salman Akram Raja. The Chief Justice said that the Rules Constitution cannot be controlled.
Vakil Sunni Ittehad Council said that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had said that if 80 percent of the people become independent, will they give all the reserved seats to the political parties with 10 percent.
The Chief Justice remarked that yes, this is exactly what the constitution says, no one’s will can be followed, the country has been thrown into disrepute because the constitution is not followed, I have taken oath under the constitution. Amend it. It has been 50 years since our constitution was made. Centuries have passed between the constitutions of the United States and the United Kingdom. When the words of the constitution are clear, why should we interpret them? Have we become wiser or smarter than the parliament? , if we did, it would be a matter of our ego.
Hardly the country gets on track, then someone comes and blows it up, then someone becomes a basic democrat, our constitution is only progressive, now what can be more progressive, sometimes old things are good.
