• Supreme Court issued a 95-page detailed written order
• Dissident member’s vote cast against party guidelines would not be counted
• Period of disqualification should be determined by the Parliament

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday issued a written order regarding the interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution with regard to the counting of the vote of a dissident member against the party policy in the House of Parliament.

A 95-page majority judgment issued by the top court said a dissident member’s vote cast against his party guidelines would not be counted, however, the period of disqualification of a dissident member should be determined by the Parliament.

It further said the Constitution had mentioned the parliamentary party for the instructions, not the party head. “The members of Parliament have complete freedom of expression but this could not be demonstrated at the time of exercising the vote in the light of Article 63-A.”

The majority judgment rejected the objections raised on the admissibility of the presidential reference, saying the court had already given answers to the objections in another case.

“To impose a lifetime ban is to remove the defector for all cycles to come. Since Article 63(1)(p) confers the necessary competence on Parliament, on reflection it is our view that the matter is best left to the legislature,” the apex court’s order said.

The decision said that if the prime minister or chief minister lost confidence in the parliamentary party then he had to face a vote of no-confidence. A member voting against party directives was destructive to the parliamentary democratic system, the apex court added.

The right of assembly members to express their opinion had also been protected in the lawyers’ front case, the verdict said. Members of the Assembly could discuss, agree or disagree within the party on the issue of vote, however, when “it comes to the voting, the situation would be different”.

The judgment said the parliamentary party’s instructions had to be followed while voting under Article 63A. It was argued that not counting the dissident member’s vote would give rise to authoritarianism in the parliamentary party but “we didn’t agree with the argument”. Counting votes cast against party policy was a threat to the democratic system, it added.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar had decided not to count the vote of the defiant member, while Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail had contradicted with the majority decision.

The former PTI-led government had decided to approach the SC for clarity on Article 63(A) as several PTI lawmakers announced to vote on the no-trust motion against then prime minister Imran Khan in violation of the party policy. However, none of the PTI MNAs had cast their votes of no-confidence against Khan, as the then opposition already had the required 172 votes to oust him.

In the reference, the previous government sought the apex court’s opinion on two interpretations of Article 63(A) and which one should be adopted and implemented to avoid defections, purification of the electoral process, and democratic accountability.

The reference stated if the constitutional disapproval and prohibition against defection were effectively enforced with deterrence for the future as well, many such members would stand disqualified for life under Article 62(1)(f) and would never be able to pollute democratic streams.

[embedpost slug=”govt-files-reference-in-supreme-court-for-interpretation-of-article-63-a/”]