SC wraps up presidential reference on Article 63(A); reserves verdict

Islamabad: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has reserved its verdict on the presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63(A) of the Constitution of Pakistan today (Tuesday)– which deals with the disqualification of parliamentarians over defection.

As per details, the apex court held a hearing on the reference today at 11:30am. A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Pakistan (CJP) Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, Justice Muneeb Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, concluded the hearing today.

The verdict will be announced today at 5:30 pm. 

During proceedings, despite CJP Bandial's denial of further extension, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz's (PML-N) lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan submitted a written request for more time for the submission of arguments.

President Dr Arif Alvi filed the reference with the Supreme Court on March 21. The reference seeks the apex court’s guidance on two interpretations of Article 63-A and which one should be adopted and implemented to achieve the constitutional objective of curbing the menace of defections and purification of the electoral process and democratic accountability.

The reference stated: “The questions of law of public importance revolving around the interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution have arisen in the context of the unending malaise of floor crossing and defections that have sullied and damaged the purity of the democratic process in the country for decades. As happened on many occasions in past, the stage is yet again set for switching of political loyalties for all sorts of illegal and mala fide considerations including vote-buying which by its very nature rarely leave admissible or traceable evidence. Some of the presently defecting members have even publicly admitted to defection in interviews to the media with evident pride and further commitment to stay engaged in this immoral trade as the prima facie consequence is innocuous while gains in cash and kind may be colossal without any possibility of a loss of membership of Parliament for life”.

The reference added, “It is evident from the overall constitutional scheme that defection/floor crossing is a morally reprehensible and destructive act which shake the confidence of the public in the democratic process. Owing to the weak interpretation of Article 63A entailing no prolonged disqualification, such members first enrich themselves and then come back to remain available to the highest bidder in the next round perpetuating this cancer”.

“There is presently no specific period of disqualification provided in respect of members found guilty of defection. This Court has observed in many cases that defection or floor crossing is nothing short of cancerous to the entire body politic and it destroys the spirit of democratic governance. Therefore, there can be no valid or cogent reason or justification to treat this cancer as an innocuous and pardonable requiring no more than de-seating of the incumbent and allowing him fresh opportunity to get re-elected soon thereafter” it further added.

“Hon’ble Court may be pleased to answer the questions of law so as to purify and strengthen the democratic process worthy of people’s respect and trust and forever eradicate the menace of defections,” the reference concluded.