DNA

 ISLAMABAD, OCT 3 (DNA) :The Supreme Court had declared null and void the earlier verdict of the apex court regarding 63 A. After this verdict now the MPs are free to cast their votes for any party and still they will not be de seated. The verdict seems to have paved way for the government to buy loyalties of the PTI MPs for the proposed Constitutional Amendment, which is now expected to be baled next week. The assembly session most likely is to be convened on October 7.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&gdpr_consent=CP7NIEAP7NIEAEsACBENArEgAAAAAEPgAB5QAAAOhQD2F2K2kKFkPCmQWYAQBCijYEAhQAAAAkCBIAAgAUgQAgFIIAgAIFAAAAAAAAAQEgCQAAQABAAAIACgAAAAAAIAAAAAAAQQAAAAAIAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAQAAAAIAABEhCAAQQAEAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAABAAA&addtl_consent=2~~dv.2072.70.89.93.108.122.149.196.2253.2299.259.2357.311.313.323.2373.338.358.2415.415.449.2506.2526.486.494.495.2568.2571.2575.540.574.2624.609.2677.864.981.1029.1048.1051.1095.1097.1126.1205.1211.1276.1301.1344.1365.1415.1423.1449.1451.1570.1577.1598.1651.1716.1735.1753.1765.1870.1878.1889.1958&client=ca-pub-7078513716629609&output=html&h=60&slotname=6594497772&adk=1630987926&adf=988457450&pi=t.ma~as.6594497772&w=468&abgtt=7&lmt=1727951090&format=468×60&url=https%3A%2F%2Fislamabadpost.com.pk%2Farticle-63-a-review-plea-cjp-makes-ali-zafar-judicial-assistant-after-his-boycott%2F&host=ca-host-pub-2644536267352236&wgl=1&dt=1727951090135&bpp=3&bdt=1668&idt=3&shv=r20241001&mjsv=m202410010101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&eo_id_str=ID%3D5af9c20e4d8edae4%3AT%3D1725612199%3ART%3D1727951078%3AS%3DAA-AfjatZJBtP2V-Mg_f1M9lUpsE&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C468x60&nras=1&correlator=6649191186604&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=300&u_his=8&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_sd=1&adx=255&ady=1389&biw=1349&bih=643&scr_x=0&scr_y=102&eid=44759875%2C44759926%2C44759837%2C44798934%2C31087735%2C95335247&oid=2&pvsid=3308124210726177&tmod=1057440116&uas=0&nvt=1&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fislamabadpost.com.pk%2F&fc=1920&brdim=-8%2C-8%2C-8%2C-8%2C1366%2C0%2C1382%2C744%2C1366%2C643&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7CoeEbr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=0&bc=31&bz=1.01&ifi=4&uci=a!4&btvi=2&fsb=1&dtd=27

earlier, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel Barrister Ali Zafar on Thursday boycotted the hearing of the review plea in Articles 63-A case after an exchange of word with Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa.

As Barrister Zafar refused to further advance arguments in case of not allowing his client – PTI founder Imran Khan – to present his submissions in court, the chief justice appointed as judicial assistant in the case.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&us_privacy=1—&gdpr_consent=CP7NIEAP7NIEAEsACBENArEgAAAAAEPgAB5QAAAOhQD2F2K2kKFkPCmQWYAQBCijYEAhQAAAAkCBIAAgAUgQAgFIIAgAIFAAAAAAAAAQEgCQAAQABAAAIACgAAAAAAIAAAAAAAQQAAAAAIAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAQAAAAIAABEhCAAQQAEAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAABAAA&addtl_consent=2~~dv.2072.70.89.93.108.122.149.196.2253.2299.259.2357.311.313.323.2373.338.358.2415.415.449.2506.2526.486.494.495.2568.2571.2575.540.574.2624.609.2677.864.981.1029.1048.1051.1095.1097.1126.1205.1211.1276.1301.1344.1365.1415.1423.1449.1451.1570.1577.1598.1651.1716.1735.1753.1765.1870.1878.1889.1958&gpp_sid=-1&client=ca-pub-7078513716629609&output=html&h=280&adk=275748643&adf=3015858253&pi=t.aa~a.2356292401~i.32~rp.4&w=696&abgtt=7&fwrn=4&fwrnh=100&lmt=1727951090&num_ads=1&rafmt=1&armr=3&sem=mc&pwprc=2527759049&ad_type=text_image&format=696×280&url=https%3A%2F%2Fislamabadpost.com.pk%2Farticle-63-a-review-plea-cjp-makes-ali-zafar-judicial-assistant-after-his-boycott%2F&host=ca-host-pub-2644536267352236&fwr=0&pra=3&rh=174&rw=696&rpe=1&resp_fmts=3&wgl=1&fa=27&dt=1727951090426&bpp=3&bdt=1958&idt=-M&shv=r20241001&mjsv=m202410010101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&eo_id_str=ID%3D5af9c20e4d8edae4%3AT%3D1725612199%3ART%3D1727951078%3AS%3DAA-AfjatZJBtP2V-Mg_f1M9lUpsE&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C468x60%2C468x60&nras=2&correlator=6649191186604&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=300&u_his=8&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_sd=1&adx=141&ady=1678&biw=1349&bih=643&scr_x=0&scr_y=612&eid=44759875%2C44759926%2C44759837%2C44798934%2C31087735%2C95335247&oid=2&pvsid=3308124210726177&tmod=1057440116&uas=0&nvt=1&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fislamabadpost.com.pk%2F&fc=1408&brdim=-8%2C-8%2C-8%2C-8%2C1366%2C0%2C1382%2C744%2C1366%2C643&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Cs%7C&abl=NS&fu=128&bc=31&bz=1.01&ifi=6&uci=a!6&btvi=3&fsb=1&dtd=465

As proceedings began, Barrister Ali quoted the PTI founder as saying the bench is not legal so there is no point in proceeding.

The PTI founder’s assertion irritated the CJP who asked Zafar not to mention his leader.

Barrister Ali retorted that the government was bringing about constitutional amendment and judicial package for you. “If you decide this case, it will be tantamount to grant permission for horse trading,” he said.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&us_privacy=1—&gdpr_consent=CP7NIEAP7NIEAEsACBENArEgAAAAAEPgAB5QAAAOhQD2F2K2kKFkPCmQWYAQBCijYEAhQAAAAkCBIAAgAUgQAgFIIAgAIFAAAAAAAAAQEgCQAAQABAAAIACgAAAAAAIAAAAAAAQQAAAAAIAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAQAAAAIAABEhCAAQQAEAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAABAAA&addtl_consent=2~~dv.2072.70.89.93.108.122.149.196.2253.2299.259.2357.311.313.323.2373.338.358.2415.415.449.2506.2526.486.494.495.2568.2571.2575.540.574.2624.609.2677.864.981.1029.1048.1051.1095.1097.1126.1205.1211.1276.1301.1344.1365.1415.1423.1449.1451.1570.1577.1598.1651.1716.1735.1753.1765.1870.1878.1889.1958&gpp_sid=-1&client=ca-pub-7078513716629609&output=html&h=280&adk=275748643&adf=2791398811&pi=t.aa~a.2356292401~i.38~rp.4&w=696&abgtt=7&fwrn=4&fwrnh=100&lmt=1727951090&num_ads=1&rafmt=1&armr=3&sem=mc&pwprc=2527759049&ad_type=text_image&format=696×280&url=https%3A%2F%2Fislamabadpost.com.pk%2Farticle-63-a-review-plea-cjp-makes-ali-zafar-judicial-assistant-after-his-boycott%2F&host=ca-host-pub-2644536267352236&fwr=0&pra=3&rh=174&rw=696&rpe=1&resp_fmts=3&wgl=1&fa=27&dt=1727951090426&bpp=7&bdt=1958&idt=-M&shv=r20241001&mjsv=m202410010101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&eo_id_str=ID%3D5af9c20e4d8edae4%3AT%3D1725612199%3ART%3D1727951078%3AS%3DAA-AfjatZJBtP2V-Mg_f1M9lUpsE&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C468x60%2C468x60%2C696x280&nras=3&correlator=6649191186604&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=300&u_his=8&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_sd=1&adx=141&ady=2193&biw=1349&bih=643&scr_x=0&scr_y=612&eid=44759875%2C44759926%2C44759837%2C44798934%2C31087735%2C95335247&oid=2&pvsid=3308124210726177&tmod=1057440116&uas=0&nvt=1&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fislamabadpost.com.pk%2F&fc=1408&brdim=-8%2C-8%2C-8%2C-8%2C1366%2C0%2C1382%2C744%2C1366%2C643&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Cs%7C&abl=NS&fu=128&bc=31&bz=1.01&ifi=7&uci=a!7&btvi=4&fsb=1&dtd=489

At this point, the CJP warned him against “crossing the line”. “We can issue you a contempt of court notice. You are committing insult before the verdict.”

“You are insulting [us] before the judgement. We cannot allow such rhetoric,” the CJP remarked.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned him how he can say we are allowing horse trading.

Chief Justice Isa said that “we respect you, you should respect us. Your statement is harsh. If we explain what is horse trading, you will be embarrassed.”

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&us_privacy=1—&gdpr_consent=CP7NIEAP7NIEAEsACBENArEgAAAAAEPgAB5QAAAOhQD2F2K2kKFkPCmQWYAQBCijYEAhQAAAAkCBIAAgAUgQAgFIIAgAIFAAAAAAAAAQEgCQAAQABAAAIACgAAAAAAIAAAAAAAQQAAAAAIAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAQAAAAIAABEhCAAQQAEAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAABAAA&addtl_consent=2~~dv.2072.70.89.93.108.122.149.196.2253.2299.259.2357.311.313.323.2373.338.358.2415.415.449.2506.2526.486.494.495.2568.2571.2575.540.574.2624.609.2677.864.981.1029.1048.1051.1095.1097.1126.1205.1211.1276.1301.1344.1365.1415.1423.1449.1451.1570.1577.1598.1651.1716.1735.1753.1765.1870.1878.1889.1958&gpp_sid=-1&client=ca-pub-7078513716629609&output=html&h=280&adk=275748643&adf=1239269418&pi=t.aa~a.2356292401~i.46~rp.4&w=696&abgtt=7&fwrn=4&fwrnh=100&lmt=1727951090&num_ads=1&rafmt=1&armr=3&sem=mc&pwprc=2527759049&ad_type=text_image&format=696×280&url=https%3A%2F%2Fislamabadpost.com.pk%2Farticle-63-a-review-plea-cjp-makes-ali-zafar-judicial-assistant-after-his-boycott%2F&host=ca-host-pub-2644536267352236&fwr=0&pra=3&rh=174&rw=696&rpe=1&resp_fmts=3&wgl=1&fa=27&dt=1727951090426&bpp=3&bdt=1958&idt=3&shv=r20241001&mjsv=m202410010101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&eo_id_str=ID%3D5af9c20e4d8edae4%3AT%3D1725612199%3ART%3D1727951078%3AS%3DAA-AfjatZJBtP2V-Mg_f1M9lUpsE&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C468x60%2C468x60%2C696x280%2C696x280&nras=4&correlator=6649191186604&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=300&u_his=8&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_sd=1&adx=141&ady=2760&biw=1349&bih=643&scr_x=0&scr_y=612&eid=44759875%2C44759926%2C44759837%2C44798934%2C31087735%2C95335247&oid=2&pvsid=3308124210726177&tmod=1057440116&uas=0&nvt=1&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fislamabadpost.com.pk%2F&fc=1408&brdim=-8%2C-8%2C-8%2C-8%2C1366%2C0%2C1382%2C744%2C1366%2C643&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Cs%7C&abl=NS&fu=128&bc=31&bz=1.01&ifi=8&uci=a!8&btvi=5&fsb=1&dtd=508

Justice Mandokhail asked him if the presidential reference is not a decision, but an opinion, then how is it being implemented. Did the president say that the opinion has come, now topple a government?

The chief justice reminded him what Hasil Bizenjo said about a Senate election. “Cameras were installed in an institution like the Senate during the election, Mr Ali Zafar, why are you afraid of a decision.”

The chief justice asked him to argue the case. It’s possible we reject this revision petition.

Ali Zafar pleaded that the president had asked for an opinion regarding 63-A. A review cannot be filed against opinion. Only the President of Pakistan could have referred if further clarification was required.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&us_privacy=1—&gdpr_consent=CP7NIEAP7NIEAEsACBENArEgAAAAAEPgAB5QAAAOhQD2F2K2kKFkPCmQWYAQBCijYEAhQAAAAkCBIAAgAUgQAgFIIAgAIFAAAAAAAAAQEgCQAAQABAAAIACgAAAAAAIAAAAAAAQQAAAAAIAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAQAAAAIAABEhCAAQQAEAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAABAAA&addtl_consent=2~~dv.2072.70.89.93.108.122.149.196.2253.2299.259.2357.311.313.323.2373.338.358.2415.415.449.2506.2526.486.494.495.2568.2571.2575.540.574.2624.609.2677.864.981.1029.1048.1051.1095.1097.1126.1205.1211.1276.1301.1344.1365.1415.1423.1449.1451.1570.1577.1598.1651.1716.1735.1753.1765.1870.1878.1889.1958&gpp_sid=-1&client=ca-pub-7078513716629609&output=html&h=280&adk=275748643&adf=548057666&pi=t.aa~a.2356292401~i.54~rp.4&w=696&abgtt=7&fwrn=4&fwrnh=100&lmt=1727951091&num_ads=1&rafmt=1&armr=3&sem=mc&pwprc=2527759049&ad_type=text_image&format=696×280&url=https%3A%2F%2Fislamabadpost.com.pk%2Farticle-63-a-review-plea-cjp-makes-ali-zafar-judicial-assistant-after-his-boycott%2F&host=ca-host-pub-2644536267352236&fwr=0&pra=3&rh=174&rw=696&rpe=1&resp_fmts=3&wgl=1&fa=27&dt=1727951090452&bpp=3&bdt=1985&idt=3&shv=r20241001&mjsv=m202410010101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&eo_id_str=ID%3D5af9c20e4d8edae4%3AT%3D1725612199%3ART%3D1727951078%3AS%3DAA-AfjatZJBtP2V-Mg_f1M9lUpsE&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C468x60%2C468x60%2C696x280%2C696x280%2C696x280&nras=5&correlator=6649191186604&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=300&u_his=8&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_sd=1&adx=141&ady=3405&biw=1349&bih=643&scr_x=0&scr_y=918&eid=44759875%2C44759926%2C44759837%2C44798934%2C31087735%2C95335247&oid=2&pvsid=3308124210726177&tmod=1057440116&uas=0&nvt=1&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fislamabadpost.com.pk%2F&fc=1408&brdim=-8%2C-8%2C-8%2C-8%2C1366%2C0%2C1382%2C744%2C1366%2C643&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Cs%7C&abl=NS&fu=128&bc=31&bz=1.01&ifi=9&uci=a!9&btvi=6&fsb=1&dtd=831

The CJP asked him that he has also filed an application in this case. Barrister Ali replied that he had sought a lifetime disqualification for floor crossing.

CJP Isa opined that the parliament can legislate on this issue.

The chief justice asked him whether the majority judges who gave the judgment of 63-A wrote the word “opinion” or used the word “decision”.

Ali replied that it is for this court to decide whether it was an opinion or a decision.

The chief justice said that means he supported revision to the extent that the word decision should be replaced by opinion.

Justice Mandokhail said in his remarks that he and Justice Miankhel were also part of the earlier bench. No objection was raised against us. Ali Zafar replied that the objection was not on a personality, it was on the composition of the bench.

Barrister Ali argued that the petition of the Supreme Court Bar was related to voting in the no-confidence motion. The Supreme Court wrongly combined presidential references and constitutional petitions. The court disposed of the constitutional petitions by saying that it had given an opinion on the reference.