ISLAMABAD, Apr 22 (APP): The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned hearing of the presidential reference seeking its opinion on Article 63-A of the Constitution till the day after Eidul Fitr holidays.
A five-member larger SC bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel heard the reference.
During the course of proceedings, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PT) counsel Barrister Ali Zafar, while continuing his arguments through video link, said the purpose of Article 63-A was to end horse-trading, and its violation was a violation of the Constitution. The votes cast by the dissident lawmakers should not be counted as per Article 63-A.
He said there were court decisions on the role and importance of political parties. Independents and ticket holders of political parties became members of the National Assembly and Article 63-A was related to a member of the latter, he added.
Justice Ijaz asked whether he (Zafar) meant the votes would not be counted under Article 63-A. Zafar replied that he was saying the same in light of judicial interpretation.
Justice Ijaz said counting of votes and dissent were two separate matters. Whether a lawmaker’s vote would not be counted even if there were no instructions from the party head, he asked.
Upon this, Barrister Zafar replied that the party head would first issue instructions about voting and then the declaration regarding dissident members.
???
Justice Mandokhail said if votes were not counted, it would mean no wrong had been committed since the article concerned would come into force only after the vote had been cast and counted.
He said according to Article 63-A, a dissident lawmaker could cast his vote but he would subsequently lose his seat.
Justice Miankhel said the party head could only give a declaration after the vote had been cast. The party chief could even inform the national assembly speaker while polling was going on.
Justice Mandokhail said 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 could withdraw the show cause after being satisfied with the dissident member’s response, he added.
Justice Ijaz asked whether the decision regarding defection was taken by the head or the parliamentary party and what the procedure was.
Upon this, Barrister zafar replied that a parliamentary party had a constitution and the majority took the decision.
Justice Mandokhail questioned why the political parties could not deal with the cancer of defection themselves. If the political parties had a problem, they should treat it themselves, he added.
Addressing the PTI’s counsel, he said the stance of most parties was different to that of the PTI’s. He asked the counsel whether he was expecting that the court would leave the majority and agree with him. Only one political party was against the dissidents, he added.
At this, Barrister Zafar responded that the authority to interpret the Constitution lay with the Supreme Court.
Justice Ijaz said it was very clear that legislation was the Parliament’s job and interpreting the laws was the court’s duty.
He said the purpose of Article 63-A’s was to end the cancer of defection.
The bench directed Zafar to submit written arguments.
Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid’s counsel Azhar Siddique adopted the PTI counsel’s arguments and said Article 63-A was a protective wall against a no-trust motion. Whatever had happened in the recent no-confidence vote that led to the ouster of Imran Khan, was against the charter of democracy.
The champions of democracy had agreed to honour the mandate, he added.
Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz’s counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the National Assembly’s term was five years and a dissident lawmaker could be disqualified only for that length.
He said former PM Imran Khan had submitted a petition in the Supreme Court, seeking a lifetime ban from contesting elections for the dissident lawmakers.
The chief justice said the question raised in the petition was the same as that in the reference. The court had no evidence as to why the lawmakers became dissidents. There was no proof of bribery or changing of consciences. It was not the dissident lawmaker’s job to provide reasons for his defection, he added.
The PML-N counsel said the legal fraternity and the public had protested over certain constitutional amendments. The 7th Constitutional Amendment allowed the government to summon the armed forces in aid of civil institutions, he added.
He said the armed forces’ actions in helping civilian institutions were excluded from judicial jurisdiction.
The chief justice said the country needed to be taken towards matured democracy for which legislative discussion was essential.
The PML-N counsel said the PTI chairman had argued in his petition that the votes of dissident lawmakers should not be counted. The reference had been filed to save the former PM from the no-trust vote. The court announced a historic decision to restore the Assembly.
