Life ban for defection too harsh: CJP Umer Ata Bandial

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umer Ata Bandial said Wednesday disqualification for life is a severe punishment and the apex court had set some conditions for this purpose, adding they know that defection is a heinous crime.

The CJP made these remarks while hearing the Presidential Reference seeking interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution along with Justice Ijazul Ahsen, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.

He said that there is a need for a stable government so that the country could make progress and the democratic process could flourish. He said that since 1970 the game of musical chairs has been going on for power but we can’t allow anyone to get benefit from unfair means.\

The CJP said that they know there are so many judgments of the apex court but at the end of day, stability of the country remains the prime objective to put it on the road to progress and prosperity. He said that Article 63-A had been introduced through a democratic process and after amending the Constitution and its prime objective was to stabilise the system.

"There is so much stress and chaos in the country and everybody is coming to the court, therefore, we have to settle the issue once and for all and are looking forward to a stable government so that the country makes progress," the CJP said.

Newly-appointed Attorney-General Ashter Ausaf appeared before the court and submitted that he has to leave for an important session of the Parliament. The CJP congratulated the AGP and asked him if he would like to make arguments before the court on the instant matter to which the AGP replied that he will, if the court asks for assistance.

The CJP said an important and complex question has been put before the court hence a line has to be drawn somewhere on that. "Should we connect only Article 63-A to the stability of the country or should we allow party heads to punish members for defection or not," the CJP asked the AGP.

The AGP replied that these points need to be looked into and interpretation of Article 63-A is quite necessary, adding that it will not only determine the present situation but will also be beneficial in future.

Justice Munib Akhtar said it was extensively being argued before the court that the vote of a dissident member should not be counted. Earlier, concluding his arguments, counsel for PMLQ Azhar Siddique submitted before the court that a daylight theft had been committed and votes were stolen but no action was taken against the people who had violated the Constitution.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that they have not yet seen any crime, asking the counsel his party was also not clear about it as well.

Azhar Siddique replied the matter of Punjab is clear but the National Assembly issue is still unresolved. He submitted copies of a research on the history of Pakistan’s political defections. Citing the Indian history on horse-trading, he submitted that they have used the word disqualification on grounds of defection while our Constitution has derived the wisdom from Islamic injunctions.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said why it was being said that politicians are thieves, adding that why these statements are being made pending investigation.

The CJP said that had a debate been held in the National Assembly on the vote of no-confidence motion, everything would have been cleared. He said that on March 28, the resolution was approved on no-confidence motion while a debate was to be held on March 31.

Azhar Siddique said that defections were there since 1960. The CJP said Article 63-A was inserted through a democratic process in the Constitution. Azhar Siddique said that on April 16, the PTI members had violated the party policy and voted for Hamza Sharif.

The CJP said that the matter relating to the reference against the PTI members is pending with the Election Commission of Pakistan, hence they cannot give their views on this.

Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel said that when the appeal comes to the apex court, it will be taken care of. Commencing his arguments, Mansoor Usman Awan, counsel for the Supreme Court Bar Association, said that the Constitution permits lawmakers to exercise their vote as per their will.

Justice Munib Akhtar, however, observed that in the parliamentary form of government, adhering to the principles of a political party is mandatory, asking the counsel if his stance is accepted, where will political parties stand? In such a way the whole parliamentary system will collapse and if there is no discipline in the party, a crisis will develop.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen said that Article 17(2) of the Constitution protects the rights of political parties. The CJP said that the legislators wanted to consolidate the system in the 1973 Constitution, adding that Article 96 had been in 1985 while elections were held on a non-party basis

The chief justice recalled that the apex court in 1989 had held that elections would be held on a party basis after holding that political parties had their due rights and hence Article 63-A was inserted.

“Should we treat Article 63-A just a ceremonial thing or to connect it to the fundamental rights for bringing stability to the system,” the CJP said and asked if Article 63-A should be left as a decorative item.

The SCBA counsel said that under Article 83-A the vote of dissident member will be counted, adding that it only de-seats a member while legislators have not determined the tenure of disqualification of a dissident. He said that whosoever gets money for his vote should be awarded severe punishment.

When the counsel said that the Constitution permits a member to cast his or her vote according to his or her own will, Justice Ijazul Ahsen said that one punishment for changing loyalty is de-seating but what the other penalty could be. The main question is if Article 63-A could be linked to the other articles, he said and asked if the counsel thinks that defection is right.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel said that in the Balochistan Assembly, one member had voted against his chief minister and he was de-seated but nowadays that political figure was a senator.

Justice Munib Akhtar said that if there is an issue of conscience, the respectable way for a member is to resign from the seat. He said that people use harsh words for dissident members, adding that when they go out, people badmouth them. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing till next Monday, asking Attorney General Ashter Ausaf to argue on the matter.