It, of of course boss justice of the prerogative of Pakistan to appoint bench discretion to hear any case brought before the Supreme Court, but many view in decision yesterday to reject all demands for formation of a full court bench hear the decision of the Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly, Dost Mazari in Chief minister elections were held on July 22 in different light.
Despite criticism and questions about “honesty” of trinomial bench Having considered the case, the court decided to continue with the same bench, reasoning that this is not the case of of such importance that full court bench be arranged to hear it.
Read more: Risk of perfect storm
Observers now expect the crisis to develop into a three-stage crisis.way showdown between civilian leadership, the judiciary, and possibly the establishment. In the center of confrontation – Supreme Court interpretation of Article 63-A; in particular, a brief order from five people bench regarding treatment of votes abandoned by legislators who are believed to have deserted from their party. Order in the question was decisive in release of 25 MPA PTI from Punjab Assembly in May and, more recently, in overturning of victory of Chaudhry Pervez Elahi of PML-Q in elections 22 July for chief of Punjab minister.
The critics say current the crisis arose because the Supreme Court, in interpreting Section 63-A in its original verdict effectively rewrote the Constitution, but has yet to issue its detailed ruling on cause, creating the gap is that the DPM successfully exploited. Those who defend the Supreme Court say that critics deliberately or innocently misinterpreting the decision of the Supreme Court, and that Mr. Mazari completely misinterpreted the decision in order to arrive in their desired conclusion.
With DPM coalition now looking for like this is in mood for and fight it seems we can move on to another clash of institutions. At a vigorous press conference on Monday afternoon, key PDM leaders called on Main justice requisition full-court bench discuss Mr. Mazari’s decision on in CM elections. Another government representatives threatened others boycott trial, wondering why “the same three judges” hear cases that concern them.
Read more: self-serving politics
Subtle accusations of passion was unnecessary, but given the seriousness of situation and severity of crisis at hand, Supreme Court should may have considered the “request” more more generous than it was. If not politics, then should considered the advice of several former presidents of The Bar Association of the Supreme Court, and former head of the SGK justice Makbool Bakar, who recommended full court bench hear the matter.
BUT full court indeed seemed like suitable forum for settlement with ending disputes and debates over various interpretations of Article 63-A, but one fears that the case will continue in weeks and months ahead.
Published in Dawn, July 26, 2022
