Disqualification period of a dissident member should be determined by Parliament, rules SC

ISLAMABAD    -   The Supreme Court of Pakistan Friday issued a written order relat­ed to the interpreta­tion of the Article 63-A of the Constitution with regard to the count­ing of the vote of a dis­sident member against the party policy in the house of Parliament. 

A 95-page majority judgment issued by the top court said a dissi­dent member’s vote cast against his party guide­lines would not be count­ed, however, the peri­od of disqualification of a dissident member should be determined by the Parliament.

It further said the Constitution had men­tioned the parliamenta­ry party for the instruc­tions, not the party head. “The members of Parliament have com­plete freedom of ex­pression but this could not be demonstrated at the time of exercising the vote in the light of Article 63-A.”

The majority judgment rejected the objections raised on the admissi­bility of the presiden­tial reference, saying the court had already giv­en answers to the objec­tions in another case.

The decision said that if the prime minister or chief minister lost con­fidence in the parlia­mentary party then he had to face a vote of no-confidence. A mem­ber voting against party directives was destruc­tive to the parliamenta­ry democratic system, the apex court added.

The right of assem­bly members to ex­press their opinion had also been protected in the lawyers’ front case, the verdict said. Mem­bers of the Assembly could discuss, agree or disagree within the party on the issue of vote, however, when “it comes to the voting, the 

 situation would be differ­ent”. The judgment said the parliamentary party’s in­structions had to be fol­lowed while voting under Article 63A. It was argued that not counting the dissi­dent member’s vote would give rise to authoritarian­ism in the parliamentary party but “we didn’t agree with the argument”. Count­ing votes cast against par­ty policy was a threat to the democratic system, it added. Chief Justice of Pa­kistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar had decided not to count the vote of the defiant member, while Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail had con­tradicted with the majority decision.