Summarizing Article 63-A of the constitution of Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a major decision, announces that the dissident members of the parliament cannot vote against the party’s position.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has given the verdict against the reference filed by the president of Pakistan Dr. Arif Alvi. In the presidential reference, the president of Pakistan has asked the court to answer some of the most burning questions related to the parliamentary voting system.
What was asked in the reference?
The question asked in the reference was whether the parliamentarians who are dissidents can be allowed to vote against the party position? Can such a parliamentarian’s vote be given the weightage? If the vote has been given against the party position, will such parliamentarians be disqualified for life? And what measures shall be taken to counter search shameful vote-buying in the future?
The Verdict on Article 63-A
According to the Supreme Court ruling, a parliamentarian cannot vote against his party’s direction. If any parliamentarian does vote against his party then his vote shall not be counted.
In its essence, Article 63-A functions to protect, and ensure the continued coherence of political parties in the legislative arena where they are the primary actors in our system of parliamentary democracy, which is one of the salient features of the Constitution. Political parties are an integral aspect of the bedrock on which our democracy rests. Their destabilization tends to shake the bedrock, which can potentially put democracy itself in peril. Defections are one of the most pernicious ways in which political parties can be destabilized. Indeed they can delegitimize parliamentary democracy itself, which is an even more deleterious effect. Defections rightly stand condemned as a cancer afflicting the body politic. They cannot be countenanced.
The Supreme Court Short Order, Dated: 17.05.2022, Reference No.1 of 2022 etc
With regards to the disqualification of a dissident parliamentarian, the Supreme Court refrained from giving answers. Instead, the court referred the matter to the parliament itself. The parliament should legislate on this matter. However many experts are of the view that the constitution tacitly approves the lifelong disqualification.
Defections rightly stand condemned as a cancer afflicting the body politic. They cannot be countenanced.
The Supreme Court Short Order, Dated: 17.05.2022, Reference No.1 of 2022 etc
On the contrary, the Supreme Court did not give any opinion on how to avoid vote-buying in the future.
Critical Analysis
Justice delayed is justice denied. If the Supreme Court has given its verdict on time, then the Prime Minister of Pakistan would still be Imran Khan. Similarly, the chief minister of Punjab would be Usman Buzdar. Also, there would be no political or constitutional crisis in Pakistan nor the economic bankruptcy of the state.
This whole saga began when the PTI members visited MQM for their support on a vote of confidence. The MQM leadership told them that Asif Ali Zardari has the vote of PTI’s dissident members. Thus, the MQM shifted its loyalty from the PTI’s government towards the opposition, PDM. If this verdict was announced at that time, then the MQM and BAP would have abstained from voting against the government.
The Supreme Court has taken so long to answer this simple reference that major unconstitutional acts have been committed, making the constitution and the law of the country a joke in the eyes of the world.
Hence, justice delayed is justice denied. The government was toppled against the wishes of the masses.
What is Article 63-A?
Article 63 of the constitution of Pakistan relates to the disqualification of a parliamentarian based on the defection.
Disqualification on grounds of defection, etc.
If supreme court had given the opinion on time, Imran khan would not have been popular. It’s a blessing in disguise.