ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial observed on Wednesday that the main aim of Article 63 (A) is to ensure a lawmaker\u2019s \u201cloyalty\u201d to their party.<\/p>\n
CJP Bandial passed the remarks during a hearing on the presidential reference seeking the interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution of Pakistan. A larger bench of the apex court, headed by CJP Umar Ata Bandial, including Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, heard the reference.<\/p>\n
In today\u2019s hearing, PPP’s counsel Farooq Naek presented his arguments before the bench.<\/p>\n
At the onset of the hearing, Naek explained to the bench that the 13th amendment was used to Abolish Article 58 2(B) but was restored by former dictator General (retd) Pervaiz Musharraf in 2002 via a Legal Framework Order.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn 2010, 58 2(B) was abolished again via the 18th amendment and Article 63(A) was included via the 14th amendment,\u201d the PPP\u2019s counsel told the bench.<\/p>\n
Naek explained to the court that under the 14th amendment, a party chairman was authorised with a lot of powers. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was not given the right to dismiss a decision made by the party chief, he added.<\/p>\n
\u201cNow, the ECP has the right to confirm the party chief’s declaration if a lawmaker defects. The word disqualification was not used in any of the amendments made in Article 63(A),\u201d said Naek.<\/p>\n
The PPP\u2019s counsel also explained to the court that the legislature retains the right to disqualify a member from Parliament and has not given the powers to the executive or the judiciary.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the 18th amendment, ECP has the right to decide on an Article 63(A) reference,\u201d said Naek. He added that the presidential reference submitted before the court was not against Article 63(A).<\/p>\n
\u201cThe presidential reference only relates to sub-section 4 of Article 63(A),\u201d said Naek.<\/p>\n
At this point, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan interjected and told the lawyer that Article 62 (1)(F) does not have a period for disqualification or un-seating. He also added that the Supreme court has interpreted the specific article.<\/p>\n
To this, Naek told the judge that the lawmakers have not \u201cdetermined disqualification\u201d for a dissident legislator in Article 63(A).<\/p>\n
At this point, CJP Bandial interjected to tell the PPP\u2019s legal counsel that Article 63 (A) has made loyalty to one’s party subject to the party’s policy on four occasions. He also added that the then attorney general Khalid Jawed Khan was told by the court that the article is \u201crelated to party loyalty\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cLoyalty is the basic constitutional principle. Article 5 states that every party member must be loyal to the state,\u201d observed CJP Bandial.<\/p>\n
The top judge also remarked that \u201cdisqualification\u201d was a \u201cnormal thing\u201d and that Article 63(A)\u2019s main \u201caim is to ensure loyalty towards the party\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have to look at the Constitution as a whole,\u201d said CJP Bandial.<\/p>\n
While Justice Ahsan observed that a lawmaker takes oath as a member of a party and is bound by those policies.<\/p>\n
In response to Justice Ahsan\u2019s comments, Naek told the court that a party lawmaker is \u201cnot a slave\u201d that they have to follow every order.<\/p>\n
However, Justice Ahsan wondered whether a government employee was also a slave. He added that \u201cevery party has certain rules and regulations which must be observed\u201d.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, Justice Munib Akhtar remarked that an MP is \u201csworn in as a party representative, not as an individual\u201d<\/p>\n
However, Naek, told the judges that no lawmaker takes an \u201coath to follow every order of the party chief\u201d.<\/p>\n
Justice Ahsan also observed that political parties are the \u201cbackbone\u201d of a parliamentary system of government. He wondered how the system could be run if its \u201cbackbone is hit by cancer\u201d.<\/p>\n
To this, Naek told the bench that a dissident lawmaker is \u201cunseated but not disqualified\u201d.<\/p>\n
Upon hearing Naek\u2019s comments, CJP Bandial observed that if \u201canyone is disqualified for dishonesty\u201d then they are automatically \u201cdisqualified for the next elections\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is not written in the Constitution anywhere. Show this and I will leave the rostrum,\u201d responded Naek.<\/p>\n
The PPP\u2019s legal counsel also told the court that loyalty is only seen in kingdoms and appealed to it to let the people decide who they want to elect.<\/p>\n
At this, Justice Ahsan told Naek that Articles 62 and 63 should be removed from the Constitution then.<\/p>\n
However, Naek maintained that \u201clifetime disqualification\u201d could not be awarded to dissident lawmakers.<\/p>\n
CJP Bandial observed that Article 63 (A) has only come under discussion at the apex court only once since 1998. He also added that this showed that the party chairmen did not take the article \u201cseriously\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat is the reason that dissident members are taken back in the party?\u201d asked the top judge.<\/p>\n
The PPP\u2019s legal counsel told the CJP, that the reason for this was that there is \u201cflexibility in politics\u201d, adding that a tough attitude leads to \u201canarchy\u201d.<\/p>\n
However, Justice Akhtar asked the lawyer if someone who is unseated can contest a \u201cby-election\u201d.<\/p>\n
To this, Naek told the judge that a person can fight in a by-election, adding that a \u201cdissident lawamker\u2019s punishment is that they are unseated\u201d.<\/p>\n
At this point, Naek wrapped up the arguments and was appreciated by the CJP for giving \u201cgood arguments\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou have cleared all the doubts,\u201d CJP told the PPP lawyer.<\/p>\n
The CJP then told the courtroom that two questions lay before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne question can be asked if vote was given against party or not? The second question maybe if there was a deviation from party lines. If voted against the policy, then court will decide something,\u201d said the top judge.<\/p>\n
At this, Senator Raza Rabbani asked for time from the court to respond to his questions in a hearing tomorrow.<\/p>\n
The court, after hearing Senator Rabbani\u2019s response, adjourned the hearing till tomorrow.<\/p>\n