Supreme Court: Vote of defecting MPs not to be counted

Islamabad (HRNW) A five-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has announced its decision, in advisory jurisdiction, on the presidential reference for the interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution.

The top court has ruled in a 3-2 majority decision that the vote cast by the defecting members of the national and provincial assembly against the party line would not be counted to the final tally.

The ruling will likely have ramifications for the Punjab government of PML-N under Chief Minister Hamza Shahbaz.

Justice Mazhar Alam and Justice Jamal Mandokhel have given a joint dissenting note. Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar gave the majority verdict.

The apex court had to deal with four questions posed in the presidential reference.

In response to the first question, the court said that Article 63-A could not be read in isolation from other Articles of the constitution as it also talks about the rights of the political parties, which provide the base for the political statement.

“Article 63A should therefore be given that interpretation and application as accords with, and is aligned as closely as possible to, the ideal situation. The pith and substance of Article 63A is to enforce the fundamental right of political parties under Article 17,” the court said.

Defection could destabilize and derail the parliamentary democracy in the country, it said.

In response to the second question in the reference, the court said that the vote of the MPs who vote against the party lines “cannot be counted and must be disregarded and this is so regardless of whether the Party Head, subsequent to such vote, proceeds to take, or refrains from taking, action that would result in a declaration of defection.”

However, responding to the third question, the top court stopped short of ruling in favor of a lifetime disqualification for defecting lawmakers.

The Supreme Court said that it was for the Parliament to enact legislation for the disqualification of defecting MPs.

The court also said that “it must be said that it is high time that such a law is placed on the statute book. If such legislation is enacted it should not amount to a mere slap on the wrist but must be a robust and proportionate response to the evil that it is designed to thwart and eradicate.”

The court has not decided on the fourth question in the reference about preempting defection in the future, saying that it was “vague, and too broad and general.”

The two dissenting judges said that if the vote of a lawmaker is not counted to the final tally it meant that they had not committed defection, said Iqbal.

The judges said that the constitution already provided for the de-seating of the defecting lawmakers and any further interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution “in our view, would amount to re-writing or reading into the Constitution and will also affect the other provisions of the Constitution, which has not even been asked by the President through this Reference.”

” Therefore, it is not our mandate. We see no force in the questions asked through this Presidential Reference, which are answered in the negative. However, if the Parliament deems fit or appropriate may impose further bar or restrictions upon the defectors,” read the dissenting note.

The judges arrived at the Supreme Court building at around 6pm where lawyers and reporters were waiting at the top court for the decision.