The Supreme Court has dismissed the motion to establish a full court to hear the Punjab CM election case
Islamabad: The Pakistan Supreme Court (SC) rejected a petition on Monday calling for the formation of a complete bench to hear the case of the Punjab election. Hamza Shabaz defeated Pervez Elahi.
According to a brief verdict, the same three benches, led by Pakistan’s Attorney General Umar Ata Bandial, consisting of Judges Ahsan and Munib Akhtar, will hear the petition filed by the PTI. .. After the decision, the Supreme Court of the State decided to postpone the hearing on the verdict until 11:30 am tomorrow (Tuesday).
CJP Bandial stated that the court needed more legal explanation for the establishment of a full bank in order to rule the case. CJP also said it was unclear whether a decision on the ruling would be made today. Meanwhile, the court also accepted requests from PML-Q President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and PPP to be involved in the case. At a hearing, Vice-Chair Mazari’s lawyer, Irfan Kadir, said he was instructed to speak only about the formation of the entire court. Therefore, he needed time to receive instructions from the client.
Meanwhile, Hamza Shabaz’s adviser, Mansour Awan, was keen to be directed to discuss the benefits. Judge Ijazul Ahsan reiterated that the decision to form a complete court was based on merit. Meanwhile, Justice Minister Azam Nazer Taller assured us that there was sufficient explanation in this regard. Attorney Kadir, said he was instructed to speak only about the formation of a complete court. Therefore, he needs time to receive instructions from the client.
Meanwhile, Hamza Shabaz’s adviser, Mansour Awan, was keen to be directed to discuss the benefits. Judge Ahsan asserted that the decision to establish a complete court was based on merit. Meanwhile, Justice Minister Azam Nazer Taller assured us that there was sufficient explanation in this regard.
Tarrar added that no spill is required if the motion for review is approved. In a hearing, CJP Bandial stated that the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) proceeding was heard at the plenary session because it was a “constitutional issue.”
“When you (the coalition) were celebrating at the time, we sent the Prime Minister home with five judges, and now you oppose it,” said the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. .. Will be formed. Adviser Kadir added that if accusations were filed against judges who repeatedly formed similar panels in presenting his allegations, the formation of a joint court could dismiss those accusations.
“I have no objection to the neutrality of the three banks today, but to disambiguate, we need to form a complete court,” said a deputy spokesman aide. CJP Bandial recalled that the SC noticed the federal case suo moto and heard the case day and night and made a verdict. “In the case of the federal government, the Vice-Chairman of Parliament determined that he had violated Article 95, but in the current scenario, the court did not receive suomoto’s notice,” the presiding judge said.
He added that the case cannot be extended but not shortened and that there is only one problem to be resolved. It is whether the leader can give instructions. “You have already answered this question positively,” he told lawyer Kadir. Attorney Kadir continued his debate, stating that the re-election of the prime minister was in the light of a court decision. “Therefore, if the court refuses to accept the Vice-Chair’s decision to refuse to vote for retired members, there is no need for re-election,” he added, adding that the proceedings are based on the Supreme Court’s decision.
Kadir further stated that the Supreme Court’s ruling on Article 63 (A) was inconsistent with “giving the impression that the Supreme Court was under pressure.” However, he added that he was not immediately trying to respect the court because the Supreme Court respected him. Citing an example of disagreement among politicians who devastated the country, the vice-chairman’s lawyer said the problem could be easily resolved if the judges joined together to form a complete court. At the end of the statement, the lawyer urged the court not to rush the decision and to consider it carefully.