On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously accepted a review petition challenging its 2022 verdict concerning the defection clause under Article 63-A of the Constitution.
The earlier ruling, issued on May 17, 2022, stated that votes cast in defiance of party lines in specific instances should not be counted. The recent decision ensures that such votes will be considered valid in future legislation.
These instances include the election of the prime minister and chief minister, votes of confidence or no-confidence, Constitution amendment bills, and money bills. Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa delivered today’s verdict, which could significantly aid the government in securing support for constitutional amendments, some involving the judiciary.
The original verdict was a split decision, with a 3-2 majority. Justices Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Jamal Khan Mandokhail dissented, arguing that further interpretation of Article 63-A would equate to altering the Constitution. The petitioner, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) echoed this sentiment.
A five-member bench, led by CJP Isa and including Justices Mandokhail, Miankhel, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Aminuddin Khan, heard the review plea. Justice Afghan joined after Justice Munib Akhtar, part of the original bench, and senior puisne judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah opted out due to concerns over a recent ordinance on bench formation.
Read: Imran Khan’s Lawyer Ali Zafar Boycotts SC Hearing on Article 63(A)
During a prior session, CJP Isa critiqued the earlier bench’s reasoning. On Wednesday, the court dismissed objections from Imran Khan’s counsel, Zafar, regarding the bench’s constitution.
In today’s proceedings, Zafar initially expressed reluctance to continue without Khan’s video link presence but agreed to assist after CJP Isa’s persuasion. Justice Isa announced the acceptance of SCBA’s appeal, stating a detailed verdict would follow.
Article 63-A restricts lawmakers’ voting autonomy, binding them to their party head’s decisions. Violations can lead to disqualification and seat vacating.
Barrister Asad Rahim and other legal experts praised the verdict but questioned its timing, hinting at possible political motivations. The bench’s formation, linked to a presidential ordinance, and its implications on the justice system were points of contention.
Barrister Yasser Latif Hamdani welcomed the decision, arguing that the previous interpretation was akin to rewriting the Constitution. He criticized the 2022 ruling for being fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional.
The hearing involved robust exchanges. Representing Imran Khan, Zafar voiced concerns about the bench’s legitimacy and attempted to prioritize his client’s input. CJP Isa and other justices reminded him of his dual role as a lawyer and a court officer, emphasizing adherence to legal protocols over client directives.
Justice Mandokhail and CJP Isa addressed the broader implications of the court’s decisions and their role in the political landscape, challenging Zafar to focus on legal arguments rather than political implications.
As the review continues, the Supreme Court’s latest decision on Article 63-A marks a significant moment, potentially shaping the future of legislative loyalty and political accountability in Pakistan.
