Parliament to decide period of disqualification of dissident MP, rules SC on a presidential reference

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday ruled that the parliament would decide the period of disqualification of a dissident lawmaker.

In its 95-page detailed verdict on the presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article-63-A of the Constitution which is related to the status of defecting lawmakers, the apex court said: “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 while keeping in mind what has been said in para 4.”

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail issued the verdict.

Justice Akhtar authored the 95-page majority judgment.

The detailed judgment begins with a quote from Chief Justice Marshall: “[We] must never forget that it is a constitution that we are expounding.”

The apex court ruled that the votes of dissident members of the parliament (MPs), cast against their parliamentary party's directives, cannot be counted.

“It is our view that the vote of any member (including a deemed member) of a Parliamentary Party in a House that is cast contrary to any direction issued by the latter in terms of para (b) of clause (1) of Article 63A 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,” read the judgment.

Interpreting the Article-63-A, the SC bench said that a member of a house shall be deemed to defect from a political party if he, having been elected as such, as a candidate or nominee of a political party or under a symbol of a political party or having been elected otherwise than as a candidate or nominee of a political party, and having become a member of a political party after such election by means of a declaration in writing:

(a) commits a breach of party discipline which means a violation of the party constitution, code of conduct and declared policies, or

(b) votes contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, or

(c) abstains from voting in the House against party policy in relation to any bill.

The Supreme Court ruled that counting votes cast against party policy is a threat to the democratic system.