LAHORE: The bench said that the deputy speaker did not point out the paragraph of the Supreme Court’s verdict on interpretation of Article 63(A) which he referred while pronouncing his ruling.
The matter apparently looks complicated, the bench said and expressed hope that all respondents would cooperate with the court. A three-member bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial is hearing Punjab Speaker Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi’s application against the ruling given by Punjab Deputy Speaker Dost Muhammad Mazari canceling 10 votes cast by Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) members in favor of him.
Other judges on the bench are Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ijazul Ahsan. The hearing is being conducted at Supreme Court-Lahore Registry.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) also filed a petition in the court challenging Mazari’s ruling.
In its application, the PTI said that the parliamentary head of PML-Q had directed the MPAs to vote for Elahi. It prayed to the court to declare Mazari’s ruling void.
During the hearing, Barrister Ali Zafar who was representing both the PTI and Elahi, said Hamza Shahbaz got 179 votes while his client Pervaiz Elahi secure 186 votes. Deputy speaker, however, rejected the votes of PML-Q MPAs. Hamza has even taken the oath of the office, he added.
Zafar said that the deputy speaker read out the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the disqualification of lawmakers for not following the party line.
He said that the deputy speaker rejected the votes based on a letter from party head Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain. He, however, did not consider the role of the parliamentary leader, Zafar argued.
The court then issued a notice to the attorney general and sought an answer from him.
The bench has also summoned Deputy Speaker Dost Muhammad Mazari and ordered him to bring the record of the election with him. The hearing was adjourned till 2pm.
PTI leader Fawad Chaudhry, talking to the media ahead of the hearing at 2pm, said that the ruling coalition wants to make the bench controversial and accused SAPM Fahd Hussain and his paid journalists of running a Twitter trend against the top court.
