ISLAMABAD: Justice Muneeb Akhtar of the Supreme Court on Thursday asserted that the lawmakers were bound to follow the policy of the political party they are affiliated with.
He made the remarks during the hearing of a presidential reference seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion on Article 63-A of the Constitution. A five-member bench, comprising CJP Justice Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail heard the petition.
Notices for the hearing were issued to Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf’s lawyer Ali Zafar, PPP’s lawyer Farooq H Naek, PML-N’s lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl’s lawyer Kamran Murtaza, as well as the advocate general for Sindh, Islamabad inspector general of police, interior secretary and president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), among others.
Justice Akhtar, observed that the purpose of Article 63-A was to stop defection from party policies. “The party’s collective opinion is above an individual opinion. The collective opinion is important for the stability of democracy,” he added.
He said one interpretation of Article 63-A was that the vote of dissidents should not be counted. Justice Akhtar further said the Constitution empowered the parliamentary party, not the party’s leader.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial observed that not counting a vote that has been cast during the no-trust proceedings against the prime minister would be “contemptuous”. “Article 63-A laid out the procedure for the disqualification of a parliamentarian over defection”, he observed.
During the hearing, Justice Mandokhail questioned whether the MNA’s vote could be counted in the proceedings conducted before he was de-seated, observing there was no mention of not counting a vote in the 18th Amendment.
Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan said that members elected to the assembly were bound by party discipline.
The chief justice said that the “spirit of Article 63-A cannot be ignored”. “It is not the court’s job to fill in the blanks. Such matters should be resolved in parliament rather than through a reference,” he said.
Whereas, Justice Alam said nobody could be forced to cast their vote. Justice Mandokhail recalled that Balochistan Assembly members had brought a no-confidence resolution against their own party’s government.
The chief justice, meanwhile, questioned the length of time an MNA could be disqualified for and when the process was started. He also asked the AGP to argue on why parliament could not settle every matter itself.
In response, AGP Khan said the system could not work if every MNA acted on his own. Justice Alam observed that according to Article 63-A(4), cancellation of party member was tantamount to disqualification. The article concerned was “very clear”, he said.
Earlier during the hearing, the chief justice directed the provinces to submit their responses in connection with the presidential reference, saying it would be “easier” to conduct proceedings once the written replies were filed.
SCBA, JUI-F and PML-N submit responses
Earlier, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), JUI-F and PML-N submitted their response in the apex court. The SBCA stated that voting is an individual right of an MNA instead of a political party’s collective right under Article 95.
It declared the MNAs’ right to vote for the no-confidence motion against the prime minister to be an individual capacity in its response over the presidential reference for the interpretation on Article 63A of the Constitution Pakistan.
Meanwhile, JUI-F also submitted its reply over the reference, declaring Article 63A “undemocratic”. “Disqualification on voting against party policy would further weaken the already fragile democracy.”
