The Supreme Court resumed a critical hearing of a petition that seeks to review the 2022 verdict concerning the defection clause under Article 63A of the Constitution.
This session marked a notable change in the bench’s composition, with Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan replacing Justice Munib Akhtar, who had previously raised concerns about the bench’s formation.
In a landmark 2022 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that parliamentarians must adhere strictly to their party’s policies during key legislative activities. This ruling specified that any votes cast by lawmakers in defiance of the party line would not be counted. The instances outlined where party policy must be followed include the election of the prime minister and chief minister, any vote of confidence or no-confidence, Constitution amendment bills, and money bills.
The decision was delivered on a presidential reference seeking clarity on Article 63-A, which deals with the disqualification of members of parliament over defection. This judgment was narrowly decided by a 3-2 split among the justices, highlighting the contentious nature of the issue.
The review petition was originally scheduled to be heard by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, comprising Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Amin ud Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel. However, the absence of Justice Munib Akhtar on Monday led to a delay. Justice Akhtar had expressed his reservations regarding the participation of Justice (retd) Mazhar Alam, who serves as an ad hoc judge, citing potential contraventions to Article 182 of the Constitution.
This led to Chief Justice Isa adjourning the proceedings until Tuesday, declaring that the bench should remain comprised of five members to maintain consistency with the original case’s conditions. A late evening order on Monday further emphasized the need for Justice Munib Akhtar to rejoin the bench or be replaced if unavailable.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has been vocal about its concerns regarding the 2022 verdict, arguing that the decision to not count the votes of dissenting lawmakers contradicts the constitutional guarantee of equal representation and interferes with legislative independence. The SCBA has urged the Supreme Court to ensure that all state functionaries act in strict accordance with the Constitution and legal stipulations.
Under Article 63-A of the Constitution, a parliamentarian may be disqualified for defection if they vote or abstain from voting contrary to the directives of their parliamentary party in critical decisions such as leadership elections, confidence votes, and key legislative bills. The process outlined involves the party head providing a written declaration of defection after offering the member a chance to explain their actions. This declaration is then forwarded to the Speaker and subsequently to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), who has 30 days to confirm the declaration and vacate the member’s seat.
The ongoing review represents a significant moment in Pakistan’s judicial and legislative landscape, with potential implications for political alignment and parliamentary democracy. The discussions and eventual decision could either reaffirm the current stance on party loyalty and legislative voting or pave the way for new interpretations of legislative freedoms and responsibilities.
As the hearings continue, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court to see how it navigates these complex constitutional waters, balancing the need for party discipline with the principles of democratic representation and individual conscience in governance.
