Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing On Presidential Reference Seeking Interpretation Of Article 63-A

The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned hearing on Presidential reference seeking its opinion on Article 63-A of the Constitution till Monday

ISLAMABAD, (UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News - 11th May, 2022 ) :The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned hearing on Presidential reference seeking its opinion on Article 63-A of the Constitution till Monday.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justic Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel heard the Presidential reference.

During the course of proceedings, Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) counsel Advocate Azhar Siddique said that the purpose of Article 63-A was to restrain lawmakers from defection.

He said that a constitutional amendment was also made to prevent the practice.

He recalled that PTI lawmakers violated the party policy on April 16 and voted in favour of Hamza Shehbaz for his election as Punjab Chief Minister in the Punjab Assembly.

Upon this, the Chief Justice remarked that the court could not comment on the disqualification reference taken up by the Election Commission of Pakistan.

He said that the matter pertaining to defected lawmakers was pending with the ECP.

Azhar Siddique said that his case did not relate to disqualification and that it was instead about the theft of mandate in a broad daylight.

Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel said the matter had to be analyzed by the ECP and an appeal against the decision of the election commission would eventually land in the apex court.

Azhar Siddique said that the word disqualification instead of de-seating was used in India for defected lawmakers.

Upon this, the Chief Justice said that a resolution of no-confidence motion was tabled in the parliament on March 28 and debate should had been held on the reasons for presenting the motion on March 31.

He said that the court had to protect the Constitution and that was the reason the court was hearing the reference for the interpretation of Article 63-A.

Justice Akhtar said Article 63-A could be read together with Article 17(2), which pertained to freedom of association and underlines that political parties have rights under it.

The court also sought the assistance of the Attorney General of Pakistan, Advocate Ashtar Ausaf Ali, who assured the court of presenting arguments in the case on Tuesday (May 17).

The chief justice questioned the AGP whether he could interpret Article 63-A in a way that might bring political and legal stability.

Ausaf responded that the judicial debate would determine one direction or another.

The Chief Justice observed it was incumbent upon a party head whether to take action against a defected member or not.

Justice Akhtar said one notion was that the vote of a defected member should not be counted.

He said the discipline of political parties was necessary for the parliamentary system of government.

He said that there was a lot of volatility, pressure and instability in political system.

He said that the courts were here to resolve internal disputes of the parties.

The counsel of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Advocate Mansoor Awan, argued that the Constitution gave lawmakers the right to vote according to their conscience.

Justice Munib Akhtar asked if the court accept his argument, where would the political parties stand? He said that the view that the entire system would collapse if Awan's argument was accepted.

The Chief Justice said that the legislature wanted to strengthen the system in the 1973 Constitution.

In 1985, Article 96 was repealed, while elections the same year were held on a non-partisan basis, he added.

He said that the top court ruled in 1989 that elections should be held on a party basis and declared that political parties had rights. Subsequently, Article 63-A was added to the Constitution, he added.

Justice Mandokhel said the Constitution also gave the freedom of expression while it was also being demanded that the punishment term for defection be extended.

The Chief Justice said that a stable government was needed for the progress of the country. He said that the game of musical chairs that had been taking place for power since the 1970s must end.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan said that one way of dealing with defection could be de-seating.

He said the duration of disqualification was not mentioned in Article 63-A. He asked whether the said article could be read with some other one.

Justice Mandokhail asked what would be the procedure of defecting lawmakers' disqualification? Justice Ahsan remarked that defection in itself was a constitutional crime. If elections were held as per law than these things would end, he added.

Justice asked advocate Mansoor Awan if defecting from the party was an acceptable practice in his opinion.

The SCBA counsel responded that de-seating was appropriate for whoever defects on the basis of their conscience, but those who defected in return of monetary benefits must be given severe punishment.

Justice Munib Akhtar remarked that those acting on their conscience must resign instead of defecting.