PM Imran Remarks
Imran Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, claimed on Tuesday that Nawaz Sharif is courting the judiciary as a result of the 1997 attack on the Supreme Court. He was seeking to justify his words.
According to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his statements came during a hearing on a presidential suggestion to interpret Constitutional Article 63-A, which is now taking place in Parliament.
Nawaz Sharif Statement
Following Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s statements at a public rally in the Punjab city of Kamalia on Saturday, Pakistan’s Supreme Court said that the judiciary had already been split as a result of Nawaz’s homecoming, and that the signs of division were plain to see.
When the prime minister said in his speech that attempts were being made to attract judges, Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel expressed his displeasure with the comment, while Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel questioned if the premier could keep himself from saying anything “irrelevant.”
AGP Answers To Prime Minister
During today’s session, Attorney General of Pakistan-AGP Khalid Jawed Khan delivered the government’s answer to the prime minister. “An argument was raised in court over the premier’s statement in Kamalia. On this occasion, I’d like to read out in front of you the statement made by the prime minister [on this subject].”
In accordance with the AGP, Prime Minister Imran’s remarks were made in reference to the 1997 tragedy. On November 28, 1997, the Supreme Court was stormed as it was in session, with the chief justice and other justices hearing a case against Nawaz Sharif, who was the prime minister of Pakistan at the time.
The attorney general went on to say that the prime minister has expressed his complete faith and trust in the justice system.
Reference: Provisions of Article 63A
According to the provisions of Article 63A, the court is requested to decide on which interpretation should be used and why.
‘Khiyanat (dishonesty) through defections merits no pre-emptive action other than de-seating the member in accordance with the specified process,’ according to the first interpretation. “There are no subsequent limitations or limitations on seeking election anew,” according to the second interpretation.
This provision is interpreted as prophylactic, as it “enshrines the constitutional goal of purifying democratic process by rooting out mischief of defection by creating deterrence, inter alia, by neutralising the effects of a vitiated vote followed by lifelong disqualification for the member found involved in such constitutionally prohibited and morally reprehensible conduct.” This provision is interpreted as prophylactic, as it “enshrines the constitutional goal of purifying democratic process by rooting out mischief
Few days before, some PTI members of parliament who had been “in hiding” in the Sindh House in Islamabad appeared in public in order to demonstrate that the opposition’s claims that they had “won over” members of the governing coalition were in fact correct.
Ahead of the crucial vote on the no-confidence motion, Prime Minister Imran Khan and many cabinet ministers said that opposition parties were engaging in horse-trading and that the capital’s Sindh House had become a centre for buying and selling members.
However, when a number of television channels sent their teams into Sindh House to verify the claims, they were met by nearly a dozen Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf members who claimed that they had developed differences with the Imran Khan-led government and that they were going to vote “according to their conscience.“
As a result, the government decided to file a presidential reference under Article 63-A with Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry in order to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the “legal status of party members’ votes when they are clearly involved in horse-trading and change their loyalties in exchange for money.”
Advice of Supremo
In the presidential referral, the Supreme Court’s advising jurisdiction was exercised under Article 186.
A member who “engages in constitutionally prohibited and morally reprehensible act of defection” can claim the right to have his or her vote counted and given equal weightage, according to President Dr Arif Alvi, who also asked the Supreme Court whether or not there is a constitutional restriction prohibiting such “tainted” votes from being considered.
He asked the court to clarify if a lawmaker who has signalled a desire to defect should be disqualified for life.
Specifically, the reference asks, “What more steps and efforts may be taken within the present constitutional, legal, and legislative framework to prohibit, prevent, and eradicate the cancerous practises of defection, floor crossing, and vote-buying?“
A new election season has begun in which political allegiances may be shifted in return for a variety of illegal and fraudulent considerations, including vote-buying, which by its very nature leaves little acceptable or traceable evidence.
It goes on to say that “the now defecting MNAs have even publicly admitted to defection in interviews with the media with evident pride and more determination to stay part in this immoral activity.”
According to the study, unless horse-trading is prohibited, a “truly democratic government will constantly remain an unrealized distant dream and longing.”
The fact that Article 63-A does not need a long term of disqualification allows such members to make a profit first and then return in the next cycle to be available to the highest bidder is an advantage. This contributes to the spread of the cancer.”
About Article 63-A. What is Article 63-A
According to the Constitution, members of Parliament who “vote or abstain from voting in contravention of any direction issued by the parliamentary party to which he belongs, in relation to the election of the prime minister or chief minister; or a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence; or a money bill; or a Constitution (amendment) bill” may be disqualified from serving.
A statement issued in the party’s official journal said that “the party chairman would provide such member with an opportunity to establish cause as to why a similar declaration should not be made against him.”
After the member has been given a chance to explain their stance by the party leader, the speaker will send the declaration to the chief election commissioner for consideration (CEC). It will then be up to the CEC to confirm the proclamation within 30 days of it being issued. Upon confirmation of the member’s resignation by the CEC, the member’s “status as a member of the House will be terminated, and his seat shall become vacant.”
The government has already said that Article 63-A will be used in order to “crush” the no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
Former Parliamentary Affairs Advisor Dr. Babar Awan said that the goal of Article 63-A of the Constitution was to prevent MPs elected by the people and in the name of their party’s leadership from resigning from their positions in the House of Representatives. “We will overcome the no-confidence motion,” he said, referring to the Constitution and laws as examples.
