Article 63 Ae Se Mutaliq Hukoomat Kya Chahti Hai?? Bilal Kayani Ka Ahem Bayan

ARY NEWS

Transcript

00:00Two questions related to this. Firstly, your position on 63A is that it should be reviewed.

00:06What exactly do you want? Should the vote not be counted? Should it not be annulled? What is a fair punishment?

00:12Look, before we get into the discussion of what should be done, we have to see what it is.

00:18According to me, the 63A judgment of the Supreme Court is a classic case of rewriting the Constitution.

00:23The 63A judgment of the Constitution is very clear. It also clearly defines the violation.

00:29If a person votes in these matters against party lines, then as a result of his violation,

00:37there will be a defection and as a result he will be de-seated.

00:40The violation is also clearly defined and his punishment is also clearly defined.

00:44And the framers of the Constitution, the parliamentarians, passed this with two thirds majority.

00:48What did the Supreme Court do? They added an additional penalty that your vote will not be counted.

00:53Although, there was no defect in this judgment. This is not an interpretation, this is an addition.

00:58It is almost like adding a penalty.

00:59This is like tightening the water so that no one thinks that we will be unhelpful.

01:03No, no. Mr. Maria, I am requesting.

01:05You are making it difficult.

01:06No, no, I am requesting. Look, if there is an addition in such a penalty, then only the parliamentarians can do it.

01:12The Supreme Court has no right to add a penalty. They can interpret the Constitution when there is a defect.

01:18There was no need for interpretation here.

01:21There can be a debate on this.

01:22And in the future, whenever two thirds of the National Assembly and two thirds of the Senate agree on this,

01:26then you can add to it or subtract from it.

01:28In my opinion, this decision was wrong and it would be better if it was corrected by the Supreme Court itself.

01:33This review petition has been pending for a long time.

01:36If it corrects it rightfully, then it will comply with the will of the parliament.

01:41So, what is the principle position of the Parliament?

01:43Should the vote not be counted?

01:44What is the ideal situation?

01:48Now, the vote should be counted.

01:51Framers of the Constitution were very clear that you can vote.

01:55But if you vote, then you can be de-seated.

01:57This right was given to the voter.

01:59And his punishment was also clearly defined.

02:01It should be complied with.

02:04So, Mr. Umair, what you are saying is that it is written in the Constitution that the vote should be counted, but it should be nullified.

02:10What problem do you see in this?

02:12Secondly, is this not a prerogative of the Parliament?

02:16Can this matter be left to the interpretation of the court?

02:22These are two different things.

02:24Who has to interpret the Constitution?

02:26You cannot interpret it.

02:28What do we take guidance from?

02:30We take guidance from the judgment of the Supreme Court.

02:32If the judgment is overruled, a different law will be settled.

02:35A different interpretation will come.

02:37Today, we have to follow the judgment in the field.

02:41The second thing you are talking about is legislative competence.

02:44Legislative competence is with the Parliament.

02:48But where does the Parliament draw it from?

02:50It draws legislative competence from the people.

02:53Look at their election speeches.

02:56The People's Party and the Noon League have voted that we will come and amend Article 63.

03:02This is a very big injustice.

03:04As long as you do not have a mandate of the people, the primary mandate of the people, you exercise it.

03:10It is not that every assembly comes and changes the constitution.

03:15This is not the case.

03:16For this, you need a proper mandate.

03:18And this assembly does not have it at all.

03:20One is because of these reasons that it is not in the election manifesto.

03:23Secondly, their status is disputed.

03:26More than 85 election petitions are pending.

03:29Until their fate is decided, 180 days have passed.

03:32The election act gives a timeline.

03:35That is over.

03:36The status is disputed.

03:38Not only the Parliament, but all the institutions, everyone is saying that the status is disputed.

03:43In that, you cannot make such a constitutional amendment.

03:48Mr. Umair talked about practice and procedure.

03:51This is right.

03:52Because if you talk to any legislator,

03:56and especially if you talk about not implementing the judgment,

03:59they say that the judgment will have to be implemented.

04:01You are not doing the right gauge.

04:03Have you made any wrong estimates?

04:06Have you kept a watchful eye on the reaction of the Bukla bodies and the judge?

04:10Look, let's take the example of 63A.

04:13A judgment has come which we think is wrong.

04:15We hope that the court will correct it.

04:17If it does not correct it, then the Parliament has full authority

04:20to bring it in the shape and form that 63A wanted.

04:24These are the tools that are available.

04:26In my view, this is a classic case of rewriting the constitution.

04:30Why didn't you do it before?

04:31Before the election, when you had an assembly,

04:33you had a decent presence there.

04:36No, two-thirds.

04:37But the PDI was not in Vivaan.

04:39You didn't have to convince Moulana.

04:40Everyone was on board.

04:41The experience of PDM 1 was on the same page.

04:44Two-thirds of the house was not available.

04:45Not even now.

04:46This is the problem.

04:47Hence, we are trying to build consensus.

04:48Even today, I say that the time should not come

04:50for the Supreme Court to correct this rewriting.

04:52As far as the practice and procedure is concerned,

04:54as far as the ordinance is concerned,

04:56I am happy that those people who said two years ago

04:59that the practice and procedure should be in order

05:02and this is an attack on the independence of judiciary.

05:04Today, they accept that this is a democratization of the Supreme Court.

05:07And instead of one person, three judges should have the power.

05:10PTI included.

05:11Those who are making noise about this thing today

05:13that why has this ordinance come?

05:14There is such a good setup that is going on.

05:16I am happy that they have accepted this.

05:19Even today, the power will not be given to one person.

05:21Only three judges have the power.

05:22But a flexibility has been put in it.

05:24In which, look,

05:25your third judge has such a flexibility.

05:28That in order for the continuity of the court,

05:31that committee should remain active.

05:33Even if a judge is not present or is not available,

05:35his quorum remains present.

05:37No, no, if you bound it with the seniority principle,

05:39I would have agreed with you.

05:41Now, you have given the statement of that third judge

05:43to any Chief Justice,

05:44I do not want to talk about a person-specific matter,

05:46you have given it to him.

05:47This means that he has the power that an additional vote has come.

05:50It has happened now.

05:51Mansoor Ali Shah will not sit in the committee.

05:53Look, Mansoor Ali Shah can also not pick and choose the laws he likes

05:57and wants to implement and does not want to implement.

05:59This is not a good precedent to set by a sitting senior Supreme Court judge.

06:02Your problem that you are saying that this has not happened,

06:04this problem is not solved.

06:06If you put it on the responsibility of the Chief Justice

06:09that the third judge should not be chosen,

06:11then you give more strength to that office.

06:13No, look, it will still be a Supreme Court judge.

06:15Now, look, the thing is that this is still an ordinance.

06:20And naturally, now when it comes in the form of a bill,

06:22then a permanent law will be made only when it will be passed by both the houses.

06:25And in this ordinance, in addition to this one thing,

06:28in my opinion, when the practice and procedure bill came first,

06:31then the power was divided into three by the individual,

06:33and this flexibility came in it.

06:35Laws evolve and change like this according to the situation of the hour.

06:38Political needs.

06:39No, no, no.

06:40Situation of the hour, political needs.

06:42No, no, you see that in order to, in this case,

06:45the intent has been to create more flexibility in this.

06:47But in that ordinance, there are other things

06:49which include that the cases should be heard first in first out.

06:52Queuing.

06:53Queuing.

06:54Queuing.

06:55Queuing.

06:56Queuing.

06:57Queuing.

06:58Queuing.

06:59Queuing.

07:00Queuing.

07:01Queuing.

07:02Queuing.

07:03Queuing.

07:04Queuing.

07:05Queuing.

07:06Queuing.

07:07Queuing.

07:08Queuing.

07:09Queuing.

07:10Queuing.

07:11Queuing.

07:12Queuing.

07:13Queuing.

07:14Queuing.

07:15Queuing.

07:16Queuing.

07:17Queuing.

07:18Queuing.

07:19Queuing.

07:20Queuing.

07:21Queuing.

07:22Queuing.

07:23Queuing.

07:24Queuing.

07:25Queuing.

07:26Queuing.

07:27Queuing.

07:28Queuing.

07:29Queuing.

07:30Queuing.

07:31Queuing.

07:32Queuing.

07:33Queuing.

07:34Queuing.

07:35Queuing.

07:36Queuing.

07:37Queuing.

07:38Queuing.

07:39Queuing.

07:40Queuing.

07:41Queuing.

07:42Queuing.

07:43Queuing.

07:44Queuing.

07:45Queuing.

07:46Queuing.

07:47Queuing.

07:48Queuing.

07:49Queuing.

07:50Queuing.

07:51Queuing.

07:52Queuing.

07:53Queuing.

07:54Queuing.

07:55Queuing.

07:56Queuing.

07:57Queuing.

07:58Queuing.

07:59Queuing.

08:00Queuing.

08:01Queuing.

08:02Queuing.

08:03Queuing.

08:04Queuing.

08:05Queuing.

08:06Queuing.

08:07Queuing.

08:08Queuing.

08:09Queuing.

08:10Queuing.

08:11Queuing.

08:12Queuing.

08:13Queuing.

08:14Queuing.

08:15Queuing.

08:16Queuing.

08:17Queuing.

08:18Queuing.

Category

Transcript

Recommended