Article 63 Ae Se Mutaliq Hukoomat Kya Chahti Hai?? Bilal Kayani Ka Ahem Bayan
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
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.