SC adjourns hearing of presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63-A.

ISLAMABAD -- The Supreme Court on Friday adjourned hearing of the presidential reference seeking its opinion on Article 63-A of the Constitution till the day after Eidul Fitr holidays.

A five-member larger SC bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel heard the reference.

During the course of proceedings, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's (PT) counsel Barrister Ali Zafar, while continuing his arguments through video link, said the purpose of Article 63-A was to end horse-trading, and its violation was a violation of the Constitution. The votes cast by the dissident lawmakers should not be counted as per Article 63-A.

He said there were court decisions on the role and importance of political parties. Independents and ticket holders of political parties became members of the National Assembly and Article 63-A was related to a member of the latter, he added.

Justice Ijaz asked whether he (Zafar) meant the votes would not be counted under Article 63-A. Zafar replied that he was saying the same in light of judicial interpretation.

Justice Ijaz said counting of votes and dissent were two separate matters. Whether a lawmaker's vote would not be counted even if there were no instructions from the party head, he asked.

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

???

Justice Mandokhail said if votes were not counted, it would mean no wrong had been committed since the article concerned would come into force only after the vote had been cast and counted.

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

Justice Miankhel said the party head could only give a declaration after the vote had been cast. The party chief could even inform the national assembly speaker while polling was going on.

Justice Mandokhail said after the vote had been cast, the party chief would first issue a show cause notice and seek the dissident member's reply. The party chief could withdraw the show cause after being satisfied with the dissident member's response, he added.

Justice Ijaz asked whether the decision regarding defection was taken by the head or the parliamentary party and what the procedure was.

Upon this, Barrister zafar replied that a parliamentary party...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT