PPP lawyer presents his contentions in Article 63-A hearing in SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday resumed hearing of the Presidential Reference seeking interpretation of Article 63-A, ARY News reported.

A five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial heard the case.

People’s Party’s Farooq H Naek initiating his arguments said that while remaining in a political party a member casts vote to another party, it is floor crossing. “Attorney General had presented political and moral arguments with regard to disqualification for life for the defectors but no constitutional argument given,” Naek said.

“Every action is based on intention, we have to see the intention of adding Article 63-A in the constitution,” PPP counsel argued. “Since 1973 several patches have been added to Article 62 and 63. Every government and dictator used to amend Articles 58, 62, 63 and 96,” Farooq Naek said.

“Apparently Article 63-A was meant to halt defection from party,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked. “Initially it has to be decided whether defection is right or wrong, if it found to be wrong than what will be its impact,” Justice Ahsan observed. “History testifies that awakening of conscience is not the only reason of defection, efforts made in several countries to stop defection. The actual question is, what will be punishment of defection of a member from his party,” Justice Ahsan posed question.

“A defecting legislator will be disqualified for remaining term of the assembly,” Farooq Naek replied. “Do you accept defection from party a crime, if it is a crime than why his vote is being counted,” Justice Mandokhel asked. “An intention of murder could not bring the Section 302 case,” the counsel replied. “The crux is the extent of the punishment for the crime,” Naek further said. “Article 63-A was added in the constitution after removal of Article 58-2 B,” he said.

“The court given its opinion in the Senate election case but no one given heed to it,” Chief Justice Ata Bandial observed. “Why political parties are neutral over the issue of defection from party,” CJP asked. “A defector gets an office in another party,” Justice Bandial said. “Democracy has yet to become mature in Pakistan,” Barrister Farooq Naek replied.

Chief Justice Bandial asked the PPP lawyer to complete his arguments today. Farooq Naek while said that he will require another hour tomorrow to conclude his arguments.

“The 1973’s constitution was preventing a member from defection and the defector’s vote was not meant to be counted,” the counsel said. “There was no disqualification punishment owing to neutral vote,” Justice Ijaz remarked. “The military dictator added Article 62 and 63 in the constitution,” Farooq Naek said.

“A court declaration was added to the Article 62-1-F,” Justice Bandial observed. “If casting vote on the voice of conscience is a crime, if it is a crime why it is permitted in the constitution,” Justice Mandokhel asked. “These problems belong to new democratic forces,” PPP lawyer said. “Our country is moving towards anarchy, people are not prepared to accept the Supreme Court decision,” Naek said. “The conditions are not aggravated to that extent don’t generalize it,” Chief Justice said.

“It has become a culture, when a decision is in your favour it is justice, and if against, it is injustice,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked.

“The prime minister and the party’s head was given immense powers in the 17th Amendment, even Supreme Court could not act against the prime minister,” PPP lawyer said.

“Assume it if a vote of no-confidence being tabled against the prime minister in his fourth year, the election commission and the supreme court take one year to decide the matter, in that case the assembly’s term will be completed and the defecting member will evade any punitive action,” Chief Justice Bandial said.

“The election commission is bound to give its decision in a fixed period in a disqualification reference,” Farooq Naek said. “The Supreme Court is also bound to decide the case in a fixed period,” Justice Mandokhel remarked.

“The assemblies were dissolved by exercising powers in Article 58-2 B during 90s,” PPP lawyer said.

“Article 63-A is meant for disqualification,” CJP remarked. ” It not means hanging the defecting member,” PPP lawyer said. “If the election commission can reject a reference against defecting members,” Justice Mandokhel asked. “If defection is a crime than why casting vote against the prime minister was not banned,” the bench questioned.

The court adjourned further hearing of the case till 1-00 PM tomorrow.