ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned hearing on Presidential reference seeking its opinion on Article 63-A of the Constitution till Tuesday. A five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justic Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel heard the Presidential reference.
During the course of proceedings, Balochistan National Party (BNP) counsel Mustafa Ramday suggested the bench to not allow political parties to use its shoulder to decide political disputes. Upon this, Justice Ijaz said that it was not obligatory upon court to take up every political matter. The court decides maintainability of the petition first then give its decision irrespective of whether its suits one party or not, he added. Advocate Mustafa Ramday said that the presidential reference was filed for political gains and Article 95 could not be rendered ineffective through Article 63-A.
On which the chief justice questioned whether the members were allowed to vote against their prime minister under Article 95? The advocate responded that Article 95 allowed members to vote against party discipline. With this argument he (Mustafa) had abolished the political party, in this way the political party would become a tea Party, the CJP said in response.
He said that under Article 63-A of the Constitution, the party head had power to override the political party’s direction. He observed that if party head condones wrongdoing of a member then it would be a mockery of the Constitution and democracy. Justice Ijaz said that the Constitution did not condone the defection. He said that few individuals could not be allowed to derail the system and democracy. He said that Constitution empowered the court to defend it.
Advocate Ramday said that Article 95 could not be invalidated by Article 63A. Upon this, the Chief Justice asked whether Article 95 allowed MNAs to vote against their prime minister. The counsel replied that Article 95 allowed members to vote outside of party discipline. He said that one thing the bench had understood from the discussion was that the party chief could revoke the instructions of the parliamentary party. He asked could the party Chief pardon the wrongful act against the party. It would be against the Constitution if a party Chief pardon the wrong act a member, he added. He asked whether parliamentary party’s instructions had no importance.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel Babar Awan said that the party was also part of the parliamentary party. Advocate Mustafa said that the system would not collapse if members submit their resignations over differences with the party. Justice Jamal Khan said that the system did not collapse over defection of members.
The counsel said that Article 63-A was a complete code. Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Shumail Butt said that the constitution gave the right to vote freely to ordinary citizens, not to members of parliament. Article 51 referred to the free vote that applied to ordinary citizens, he added. He said that the elected members must adhere to party discipline policy. Article 63-A should be read in conjunction with Article 62, he added.
He said that no provision of the constitution was for beauty. There would be serious consequences if Article 63-A read in conjunction with Article 62, he added. He said that two forums had to review the defection even after the parliament. Subsequently, the hearing of the case was adjourned till Tuesday.
