The Supreme Court Tuesday said Article 63-A of the Constitution did not mention lifetime disqualification, as it only referred to temporary disqualification in case of violation of party discipline.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court – headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aijazul Ahsan, Justice MazharAlam, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel – resumed the hearing of presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63(A) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Bar Association’s (SCBA) plea against political rallies in the federal capital.
Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan said defection was no ordinary political activity and added that the Constitution mentioned the tenure of an assembly, not of lawmakers.
According to the AGP, lawmakers’ membership ends in case of the dissolution of the assembly. He said the purpose of Article 63-A will be fulfilled with lifetime disqualification and the law would not serve its purpose by de-seating lawmakers till the completion of the assembly’s tenure. The government’s lawyer said that in case of a declaration, Article 62(1)(f) will be applied to the dissenting lawmaker, says a news report.
At this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked whether disagreement meant dissent as per the AGP, to which Khan replied in the negative.
Justice Mandokhail said Article 63-A referred to de-seating, not disqualification. He added that there was no need for further discussion when there was no mention of disqualification.
“Will the Election Commission of Pakistan conduct an inquiry about defection?”
Justice Ijazul Ahsan said Article 63-A would not need evidence as defection was not a mistake but a deliberate action and further added that the court will have to do a lot of manoeuvring to determine lifetime disqualification. Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that there was no mention of lifelong disqualification in Article 63-A. There were separate court decisions on the application and consequences of Article 62(1)(f).
Justice Mandokhail added that in case of possible defections, the party head was bound to listen to the version of the lawmakers by issuing a show-cause notice. Providing clarification to the Supreme Court on Prime Minister Imran Khan’s remarks about Nawaz wooing judges, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Javed Khan apprised the top court that the premier had referred to the 1997 incident in his Kamalia rally speech. Khalid Javed Khan apprised the court that he spoke to PM Imran Khan over the apex court’s disapproval of his remarks regarding the judges.
“I want to issue a statement on behalf of the prime minister in the court,” he added. “PM Imran Khan highly respects the judges and he had referred to the incident of wooing judges that happened in 1997 while addressing the Kamalia rally,” the attorney general said. The AGP added that the premier “believes in the impartiality of the judges and the independence of the judiciary.” The attorney general contended that the members should be “disqualified for life over defection.”
He, however, said that there is no issue if a member does not want to get elected after being de-seated but 62(1)f is applicable if a member wants to contest again after defecting from their party. At this, Justice Mandokhel remarked that “at least disagreement should be allowed.”Responding to the remark, AGP Khan said that there is “room for disagreements but it is forbidden in some cases.”
Justice Ahsan inquired whether a member should be disqualified if he is de-seated over defection from the party. At this, Justice Akhtar observed that the Parliament can legislate to determine the duration for disqualification under Article 63(A). “The Parliament can fix the duration for disqualification up to two to five years,” Justice Akhtar said.
Whereas, Justice Ahsan questioned: “Why isn’t the Parliament fixing the disqualification duration by amending Article 63(A)?” At this, Justice Akhtar asked what should be the basis of a member’s disqualification after being de-seated. “Is defection enough as the basis for disqualification?” Justice Akhter inquired.
