ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned the hearing on a presidential reference seeking the interpretation of Article 63(A) of the Constitution, which is related to disqualification of parliamentarians on grounds of defection, ahead of a vote of no-confidence against Prime Minister Imran Khan.
A five-member larger bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heard the reference along with a plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) against public gatherings of the Opposition and the government in the federal capital.
During the hearing, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Javed Khan assured the court of completing his arguments on Monday.
“The Constitution doesn’t require lawmakers’ affiliation with a political party,” CJP Bandial said while hearing the arguments.
However, Justice Ahsan was of the view that when a member becomes part of a party, he signs loyalty towards the party. He asked whether PM Imran as the party head has issued any directives to the party members. “If yes, the court should be informed,” he added.
Meanwhile, AGP Khan said in his arguments that even the reserved seat MNAs were present in Sindh House. “The reserved seats are allocated as per the list issued by the party,” he added.
At this CJP Bandial inquired if the AGP believes that the members who don’t vote in the party’s favour commit dishonesty? “There is extremely strict punishment for khayanat (dishonesty) in Quran. Betrayal of trust is a big sin,” CJP Bandial said.
During the hearing of the case on Thursday, Justice Akhtar had observed that lawmakers are bound to follow the policy of the political party they are affiliated with.
“Lawmakers have to vote in accordance with their party’s mandate. They have to follow the party policy. Full stop, that’s it,” Justice Akhtar said. Meanwhile, Justice Alam said nobody could be forced to cast their vote.
Replies submitted to court
On Thursday, the SCBA submitted a written reply to the apex court ahead of today’s hearing in accordance with the court’s directives. In its reply, the SCBA said that the votes of MNAs “cannot possibly be construed as a collective right of a political party”, citing Article 95 of the Constitution.
The association also said that Article 63-A, which deals with disqualification of a lawmaker over defection, cannot “control, restrict or limit the right of MNAs to participate in a vote of no-confidence against the prime minister”.
The SCBA also noted that there was no basis to construe disqualification under Article 63-A as permanent, highlighting that the term “disqualification” had not been used. It said that the consequences of Article 63-A for a defecting member “must remain limited to his removal from office as a member of the relevant House”.
Separately, in its reply the PML-N said that Articles 63-A and 95 were clear and stated that every member had the right to vote. The party added that the votes cast by each member of the assembly should be counted and termed the presidential reference “premature and unnecessary”.
The PPP stated that the presidential reference did not fall under the ambit of Article 186, which is related to the advisory jurisdiction of the SC.
