Article 63-A: Allowing petitions, SC strikes down 2022 ruling on defection clause

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court allowing the review petitions of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and others, unanimously, set aside the SC’s majority judgment on Article 63A of the Constitution.

A five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, on May 17, 2022, by majority of 3 to 2 had held that the vote of any member of a Parliamentary Party in a House cast contrary to any direction in terms of para (b) of clause (1) of Article 63A cannot be counted and must be disregarded.

Justice Mazhar Alam and Justice Jamal Khan, who dissented, wrote separate note. They rendered opinion that Article 63A of the Constitution is a complete code in itself, which provides a comprehensive procedure regarding defection of a member of the Parliament and consequences thereof.

President of Pakistan Dr Arif Alvi in view of no-confidence vote against former prime minister Imran Khan on March 21, 2022 had filed a Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution seeking interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution. It contained four questions of law of public importance. Thereafter, on April 4, 2022, PTI also filed a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The bench clubbed both the Reference and petition and passed a judgment in October 2022.

At the onset of the proceeding, Barrister Ali Zafar informed that as per the Court’s order he met with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan in Adiala Jail in the presence of a police officer, adding it was not a lawyer-client meeting, in the presence of police.

Zafar submitted his client likes to address the Court in person, and wanted video-link facility be provided.

The chief justice reacting to Zafar’s submission said on the first day he told the Court that he wanted to consult his client. “Now you are telling us, he (Imran) wants to address the Court.” Justice Faez questioned did he address the Court himself in the first stage, adding he was represented by the counsel.

Ali Zafar said his client has some issues with the bench members, and if the Court allows him to address then he would proceed further.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024