Country needed to be taken towards 'mature democracy' for which legislative discussion was essential: CJP Umar Ata Bandial.

ISLAMABAD -- Supreme Court of Pakistan judge Justice Munib Akhtar, who is part of a five-member bench hearing a presidential reference seeking the SC's interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution, observed on Friday that the "honourable way out for dissident lawmakers is to resign and go home".

He was responding to PML-N counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan's argument that disloyalty to the party was different from disloyalty to the state.

During a hearing earlier this week, Justice Akhtar had likened defection in parliamentary democracy to the devastation wrought by cancer on a human body.

The five-member bench of the SC hearing the presidential reference, which is related to disqualification of lawmakers over defection, is headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprises Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.

When the hearing resumed on Friday, PTI counsel Senator Syed Ali Zafar continued his arguments, saying the purpose of Article 63-A was to end horse-trading. "Violation of 63-A is a violation of the Constitution," he said, adding that votes cast by dissident lawmakers would not be counted as per the concerned article.

"There are court decisions on the role and importance of political parties. Independents and ticket holders of political parties become members [of the National Assembly] and Article 63-A is related to a member of the latter," he said.

Justice Ahsan questioned whether Zafar meant the votes would not be counted under Article 63-A, to which the counsel replied that he was saying the same in light of judicial interpretation.

The judge observed that counting of votes and dissent were two separate matters, asking whether a lawmaker's vote would not be counted even if there were no instructions from the party head.

Zafar replied that the party head would first issue instructions about voting and then the declaration regarding dissident members.

Justice Mandokhail then repeated Justice Ahsan's question about counting of votes in the absence of instructions from the party head, observing that if votes were not counted, it would mean no wrong had been committed since the concerned Article would come into force only after the vote has been cast.

He observed that according to Article 63-A, a dissident lawmaker could cast his vote but he would subsequently lose his seat.

Meanwhile, Justice Miankhel observed that the party head could only...