Islamabad, October 04,2024- Advocate Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad, a Supreme Court lawyer, stated that globally, it is an established legal principle that the Supreme Court’s role is to review whether laws or amendments align with fundamental rights or the constitutional framework. However, the Supreme Court cannot rewrite the Constitution itself; only the Parliament holds the authority to make formal changes to the Constitution.
He highlighted that the earlier decision of the Supreme Court concerning Article 63A of the Constitution had overstepped its jurisdiction under Article 175(2). The court, in its earlier judgment, had exceeded its mandate by reinterpreting the Constitution, rather than merely interpreting the law. He noted that the recent unanimous decision of the Supreme Court has rightfully corrected this overreach, reinforcing that the court’s role is to interpret, not to rewrite or add provisions to the Constitution.
Hafiz Ehsaan further explained that there was broad consensus among legal experts that the earlier judgment on Article 63A did not align with the constitutional structure and was not legally sustainable. There was no substantial argument presented in favor of the impugned decision; instead, the focus of the debate was on the constitution of the bench. He emphasized that, according to legal experts, the bench was properly constituted under the amendment made through the Practice and Procedure Act, and no deviation occurred in this regard, making objections to the bench’s formation invalid. In conclusion, Hafiz Ehsaan commended the Supreme Court for recognizing its jurisdiction and legally rectifying its earlier decision. The court has now correctly upheld the clear language and intent of Article 63A, affirming that votes will be counted in all situations, and the consequences of defection will follow later.
