Islamabad: The Supreme Court has issued a written decision on the presidential reference regarding the interpretation of Article 63A.
The Supreme Court issued a detailed written decision on the presidential reference regarding the interpretation of Article 63A. The majority judgment has been written by Justice Muneeb Akhtar which consists of 95 pages.
The judgment opens with a statement by Chief Justice Marshall, which states that Chief Justice Marshall once said, “We must not forget that our job is only to interpret the Constitution.”
In the decision, it is said that the vote given by the disaffected member against the party instructions will not be counted, the period of disqualification of the disaffected member should be determined by the parliament. Parliament has complete freedom of expression.
The judgment states that this freedom of expression cannot be exercised by voting in the light of Article 63A. The objections raised on the admissibility of the presidential reference are rejected. The Supreme Court has already given it.
The decision has said that if the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister loses confidence in the parliamentary party, he has to face a vote of no-confidence or no-confidence. A member of the assembly voting against the party instructions is destructive to the parliamentary democratic system. The right to express opinion has also been protected in the Vakala Mahaz case.
According to the decision, the members of the assembly can discuss, agree or disagree within the party on the issue of vote, when it comes to voting, then the situation will be different, while voting, following the instructions of the parliamentary party under Article 63A. Will be.
It has been argued in the judgment that we do not agree with the argument that not counting the vote of a defecting member promotes dictatorship in the parliamentary party, counting the vote cast against the party policy is a threat to the democratic system.
Read: Interpretation of Article 63A: Vote of dissenting members cannot be counted, Supreme Court
According to the decision, all political parties have equal rights given in the constitution, all political parties are equal in the eyes of the constitution, even small parties should have full freedom to work, defection of members affects the integrity and harmony of political parties. There is a direct attack, the defection of the members from the party is against the constitutional rights of the political party, if the defection of the members is not stopped, there will be no fair competition in the political parties.
It should be remembered that in this interpretation, Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Muneeb had decided not to count the vote of the dissenting member, while Justice Mazhar Alam Mian Khel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel had disagreed with the majority decision and It was said that the vote of the defiant member should be counted.
