Five-member larger bench announces 3-2 split decision; Condoning of defection amounts to mockery of Constitution: CJP; Lawmaker to remain disqualified until court cancels it: Justice Ahsan
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, in its decision on a presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution which is related to the status of defecting lawmakers, said the votes of defecting lawmakers will not be counted.
The verdict by the larger bench of the apex court was a 3-2 split decision, with a majority of the judges not allowing lawmakers to vote against party line in four instances outlined under Article 63-A.
These four instances are the election of prime minister and chief minister; a vote of confidence or no-confidence; a Constitution amendment bill; and a money bill.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar gave the majority verdict while Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail were the dissenting judges, who said that giving an opinion on the presidential reference was akin to “rewriting the Constitution”.
In response to the third question regarding the disqualification of members, the top court rejected the PTI’s plea, saving the lawmakers from permanently being barred from the Parliament.
In its opinion on the fourth question, the three judges said that it was the right time for the Parliament to legislate on lifetime disqualification and make laws in relation to curbing horse-trading.
During yesterday’s hearing, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial had indicated that the court would be concluding the case on Tuesday.
“The court wants to make a decision on the case soon,” the top judge had remarked while rejecting Attorney-General of Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf and PML-N’s request for extension.
During today’s hearing, despite CJP Bandial’s denial of further extension, PML-N’s lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan submitted a written request for more time for the submission of arguments. The lawyer maintained that the circumstances have changed now, therefore, he should be allowed more time to take new instructions from his client. While presenting his arguments, AGP Ausaf said that the court is looking into the presidential reference as an advisory authority and he would assist the court in line with the reference and legal questions.
He maintained that article 63(A) is a complete code.
“It has to be seen that if anything else needs to be added to the Article or not, and whether the dissidents’ vote can be counted,” the AGP stated.
