ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday released a detailed 23-page verdict regarding the interpretation of Article 63-A, declaring that the previous ruling of the apex court contradicted the clear language and mandate of the constitution.
A five-member bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and including Justices Aminud Din Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Mazhar Alam Miankhail, and Naeem Afghan, had annulled its 2022 verdict on October 2. The earlier decision had prohibited lawmakers from voting against party directives in parliament.
In the detailed judgment, the court ruled that the prior ruling had the potential to turn a political party leader into a “dictator.” The judgment stated, “Nothing can be more undemocratic; the majority’s judgment has paved the way for transforming a political party leader into a dictator, as the leader cannot be challenged.”
The court noted that the 2022 ruling referenced decisions from various countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, India, and the Privy Council, but did so without verifying the applicable laws on defections and their consequences in those jurisdictions.
The detailed judgment indicated that the court had sought counsel to provide insights on international practices regarding defections. It cited submissions from senior counsel Farooq H. Naek and the learned Additional Advocate General (AAG), which highlighted that voting contrary to a party’s direction does not lead to automatic disqualification in most countries. The AAG mentioned that while Papua New Guinea enacted such a law, its Supreme Court struck it down in a 2008 ruling.
The judgment stressed the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions rather than personal biases. It asserted that a judge’s personal beliefs about right or wrong are not equivalent to law. While lawmakers may legislate based on moral values, courts must focus solely on what is lawful.
The judgment concluded that any ambiguities in the law should be interpreted within the established legal framework.
