Supreme Court hears Presidential Reference on Article 63 (A)

ISLAMABAD: The members have been bound to follow the party’s instructions under Article 63 (A), Attorney General argued before a larger bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday.

A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial started hearing of a Presidential Reference seeking the court’s opinion on Article 63 (A) of the constitution, related with defection of the Parliament members.

Earlier, today all parties in the reference submitted their written reply in the court.

The Supreme Court also made the provinces and the ICT as party in the presidential reference and issued notices to provincial advocate generals.

“The party’s members will have to follow the party policy over election of the prime minister and the no-confidence proceedings,” AG Khalid Jawed Khan argued.

“If the Article 63-(A) describes disqualification,” Justice Jamal Mandokhel questioned. “Even the heading of Article 63-(A) is related to disqualification,” top state lawyer replied. “The constitution have a clear mechanism for disqualification,” AG said. “Constitution’s Articles 62, 63 and 63-(A) could not read separately,” he said.

“Political parties are foundation of the party based political system, the court had given observations with regard to defection from the party policy.

“Articles 62 and 63 shall read in continuity and not separately,” Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed. “They should also read in continuity as both articles discuss the disqualification,” AG said.

“There is difference between a citizen’s vote in general election and the vote of the parliament’s member,” Justice Ahsan observed.

“The people’s mandate emerges in the house in a collective. Political parties legislate in assembly for the people” AG argued.

“The right to vote is not for the legislators, neither to the party members,” Justice Mandokhel said.

“The compliance of party discipline is must for assembly members on four occasions, to make them bound to the discipline Article 63-(A) was introduced,” Justice Ahsan said.

“Political parties are institutions, which weaken with violation of the discipline,” Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked. “Non-compliance of the party line damages a political party,” he furtgher said.

“The general elections in 1985 held on non-party basis, Muhammad Khan Junejo had to become the party’s president to become the prime minister,” Attorney General said.

“There are separate political and legal motives for violation of the party discipline. The member will not be issued the party’s ticket, which is political impact,” chief justice said.

“Are the members not accountable to their constituents,” Justice Mandokhel questioned. “What is the limit of the party discipline’s compliance,” he further asked.

“The member could resign and seek the mandate again,” Attorney General said. “A member jumping to other boat have to sacrifice his seat,” the chief justice said. “There is a procedure of disqualification after violation of Article 63-(A).”

“The issue is not only of the sword of 63-(A) but the failure of the entire system,” AG said.

“If all members follow their personal will then a political party will turn into a crowd from an institution,” Justice Muneeb Akhtar said. “Institutions destroy when individuals become strong,” Justice Akhtar said.

“I won’t touch the issue of preventing horse trading, the matter should be left to the Parliament,” AG said.

“If the floor-crossing is allowed in developed countries. Are you intend to make the party leader into the king,” Justice Mandokhel questioned. “Not making any person king but also not to turn a member into a turncoat,” AG replied.

Chief Justice Bandial remarked that a member of the parliament could not be stopped from casting vote, neither the constitution have a way about not accepting the vote of a parliamentarian.

“Is there an inner party debate,” Justice Mandokhel asked. “What will be more as they are criticising the party while sitting in Sindh House,” Attorney General said.

“One must stand with the party despite anger. In the West peole express their anger within party. A parliament member could not be stopped from casting vote,” chief justice said. “There is no way in the constitution to deny a member’s vote,” he further said.

“There is only one question, if a member disqualify over voting against the party’s policy, what will be the period of disqualification,” he remarked.

“The constitution has not empowered the party’s head bu the parlimentary party. The collective opinion of a party is superiot to individual one,” Justice Muneeb Akhtar said.

“The spirit of Article 63-(A) could not be ignored. Fill in the blank is not the court’s business. These matters should be solved in the parliament,” Chief Justice observed.

The bench adjourned further hearing of presidential reference on
Article 63-(A) till tomorrow.