Devotees' votes will not be counted, the disqualification period should be decided by Parliament, and the deviation can derail political parties' unstable democracy: SC ISLAMABAD The Supreme Court, after hearing the Presidential Reference and Constitutional Petitions filed by the Members of Parliament regarding the interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution regarding deviation from the policies of their political party by a two-thirds majority. Dealing with the presidential reference, the court ruled that the vote of a member of the Assembly who deviated from party policy would not be counted. The court said that the deviation of members could destabilize political parties and derail democracy. Deviation from party policy is tantamount to cancer for political parties. Political parties should be protected from unconstitutional attacks and sabotage. The protection of the rights of political parties is above the rights of one member. The matter has been referred to Parliament, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan said, adding that the President does not need a legal opinion from the Attorney General for reference. Rejects PTI's constitutional request for lifelong disqualification of deviant members.
Two bench members, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Mian Khel and Justice Jamal Khan Mando Khel disagreed with the majority decision, saying that we do not see any life in the questions asked through this presidential reference, Article 63A is a complete rule. The court is not authorized to interpret it. The purpose of Article 63-A is to prevent deviation. A five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ija Zala Hassan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Mian Khel, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel reserved its judgment after hearing the case on Tuesday. has been. In the majority decision, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ija Zalahsan, and Justice Muneeb Akhtar have given their opinion on three questions raised in the presidential reference while one question has been sent back to the President. The role of political parties is key in democracy, political parties are an integral part without which parliamentary democracy cannot exist and deviation from the policies of one's party by an elected member is the way to destabilize political parties. Can be done,
The majority decision further said that the purpose of Article 63A is to prevent members from deviating, the votes of deviant members will not be counted, the court ruled that the essence of Article 63A is that no member of a political party deviates from party policy The court has ruled that Article 63A cannot be read alone, it will be linked to Article 17 and Article 17 protects the rights of political parties. The court held that stability in political parties is essential, Article 63A applies to deviations from the directions of the parliamentary party, Article 63A protects the rights of political parties given in Article 17 (2) whereas Article 63A in legislation. Protects political parties, the court has ruled that political parties are an integral part of our democracy, and instability in political parties shakes the very foundations of democracy. Deviation from party policy is destructive to the stability of political parties. Therefore, the vote of the deviant member cannot be counted. While the question of preventing possible deviations in the future is referred to the President by the court, it is a vague question. The majority ruled that it was time to legislate in Parliament regarding deviant members.
On the other hand, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Mian Khel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel in their joint minority dissenting note have stated that Article 63A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a complete rule in itself, which deals with the deviation of a Member of Parliament and its consequences. Provides a comprehensive procedure in this regard. If the Election Commission confirms the reference sent by the head of a political party against a deviant member, then that member will not be a member of this House and as a result, that seat will become vacant.
While the disqualified member or the political party also has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Election Commission under sub-article (5) of Article 63A of the Constitution, the apex court has ruled that Any further interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution would be tantamount to rewriting or re-reading the Constitution and would also affect other provisions of the Constitution, about which the President has not even asked any question in this reference. So this is not our mandate, The judges further said that we do not see any life in the questions asked through this presidential reference, therefore their answer is in the negative, however, if Parliament deems it appropriate, it can impose further sanctions on the defecting members. Yes, the apex court has ruled that constitutional petitions No. 2 and 9 are excluded.
0 Comments