ISLAMABAD: During hearing on the Presidential reference seeking the SC’s interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution, Justice Munib Akhtar on Friday remarked that the “honourable way out for dissident lawmakers is to resign and go home”.
Justice Munib Akhtar is part of a five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprises Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
Justice Akhtar was responding to PML-N counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan’s argument that disloyalty to the party was different from disloyalty to the state.
During a hearing earlier this week, Justice Akhtar had likened defection in parliamentary democracy to the devastation wrought by cancer on a human body.
When the hearing resumed today, PTI counsel Ali Zafar continued his arguments, saying the purpose of Article 63-A was to end horse-trading.
“Violation of 63-A is a violation of the Constitution,” he said, adding that votes cast by dissident lawmakers would not be counted as per the concerned article.
“There are court decisions on the role and importance of political parties. Independents and ticket holders of political parties become members of the National Assembly and Article 63-A is related to a member of the latter,” he said.
Justice Ahsan questioned whether Zafar meant the votes would not be counted under Article 63-A, to which the counsel replied that he was saying the same in light of judicial interpretation.
The judge observed that counting votes and dissent were two separate matters, asking whether a lawmaker’s vote would not be counted even if there were no instructions from the party head.
Zafar replied that the party head would first issue instructions about voting and then the declaration regarding dissident members.
Justice Mandokhail then repeated Justice Ahsan’s question about the counting votes in the absence of instructions from the party head, observing that if votes were not counted, it would mean no wrong had been committed since the concerned Article would come into force only after the vote has been cast.
He observed that according to Article 63-A, a dissident lawmaker could cast his vote but he would subsequently lose his seat.
Meanwhile, Justice Miankhel observed that the party head could only give a declaration after the vote had been cast, adding that the party chief could inform the speaker even while polling was going on.
Justice Mandokhail pointed out that after the vote had been cast, the party chief would first issue a show-cause notice and seek the dissident member’s reply.
“The party chief may end the show cause after being satisfied with the response received,” Justice Mandokhail added.
Justice Ahsan questioned whether the decision regarding defection was taken by the head of the parliamentary party and what the procedure was.
Ahead of its ouster, the PTI government had filed a presidential reference for the interpretation of Article 63-A, asking the top court about the “legal status of the vote of party members when they are clearly involved in horse-trading and change their loyalties in exchange for money”.
The presidential reference was filed under Article 186 which is related to the advisory jurisdiction of the SC.
