Presidential reference on Senate open ballot: PPP implores Supreme Court to answer in negative

ISLAMABAD: The PPP implored the Supreme Court Wednesday to answer in negative, the presidential reference, seeking the upcoming elections for Senate through open ballot.

The PPP filed an application in the apex court through Nayyar Hussain Bukhari to become a party in the instant presidential reference, praying to answer the reference in negative. On December 23, the federal government had sought the opinion of Supreme Court on holding the upcoming elections for the Upper House of the Parliament (Senate) through open ballot and show of hands.

President Dr Arif Alvi after approving the proposal of Prime Minister Imran Khan had filed a reference in the Supreme Court under Article 186 of the Constitution, seeking its opinion on holding the upcoming Senate elections through open ballot and show of hands.

In its application, the PPP submitted that Articles 59, 223 and 224 of 1973 Constitution, when read together leave no doubt that elections to the Senate of Pakistan are elections under the Constitution, hence, Article 226 of 1973 Constitution is applicable. It prayed the apex court to answer the reference in negative, in as much as that the elections of the members of the Senate of Pakistan, are elections under the 1973 Constitution. Earlier, during the course of hearing of the presidential reference resumed by the five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Attorney General Khalid Javed continued his arguments. Raza Rabbani told the court that the PPP has also filed an application to become a party in the instant matter. “What it says whether elections to the Senate through open ballot or secret ballot,” Chief Justice asked Raza Rabbani.

Raza Rabbani however, replied that the PPP is of the view that elections to the Senate are under the Constitution.

Chief Justice observed that late Benazir Bhutto had so many times said elections to the Senate will be held through open ballot. “It’s your prerogative however, to change your stance”, the CJ told Raza Rabbani. Meanwhile, Attorney General Khalid Javed while continuing his arguments cited various judgments of the apex court as well as Indian constitution. Citing a judgment titled Benazir Bhutto verses Federation, the AG submitted that the judgment specifically mentioned about the role of political parties in parliamentary democracy and parliamentary form of government. “Do people vote for party head or for its manifesto,” the CJ asked the AG. Attorney General replied that people use to vote for charismatic leadership as well as for the manifesto of the parties, adding that Quaid-i-Azam was a charismatic leader and it was due to his untiring efforts Pakistan came into being. The AG submitted that Indira Gandhi was a charismatic leader and when people came to know that she did not have any programme for the benefit of the people, they later rejected her. Referring to the role of the public representatives, Attorney General submitted that parliamentarians should respect the confidence reposed in them by their people sending them to the parliament. Their first obligation is to the people and they are standing in the eyes of the people and if they shake the confidence of the people they would not be voted the next time. “But we have to stick to legal principles”, the CJ observed. The AG contended that he has referred to many judgments which had mentioned about the purification of the election in transparent manner. In Habib Akram’s case an affidavit was required to be filed by the public representatives for not being defaulters of any bank liabilities,” the AG submitted. “Your lordship gave clear judgments about false educational degrees as well as dual nationals got disqualified by the judgments of this court,” AG further submitted. Similarly, the AG said in Sanaullah Baloch’s case, lifetime disqualification was given by the court. Justice Ijazul Ahsan asked AG as to whether a parliamentarian, if voted against his/her party will be considered as dishonest?

No, the AG replied saying one should open-heartedly say through open ballot he is not giving the vote to such and such person because he is not fit to be voted. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Thursday) wherein Attorney General will conclude his arguments.