SCBA files petition for review of SC’s opinion on Article 63A
A file photo of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. PHOTO: EXPRESS
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Thursday filed a petition in the top court for a review of the court’s May 17 opinion on the presidential reference regarding the interpretation of Article 63A, which is about the status of the defecting lawmakers.
By a majority of 3-2, the apex court had held on May 17 that Article 63A of the Constitution, which deals with defection, protects the fundamental rights of a parliamentary party rather than its members. Therefore, a vote cast contrary to the party line should not be counted, the opinion said.
According to the opinion, the dissident lawmakers were not allowed to vote against the party line in four instances including the election of prime minister and chief minister; a vote of confidence or no-confidence; a constitutional amendment bill; and a money bill outlined under Article 63-A.
Read SCBA to challenge SC opinion on Article 63-A
The SCBA’s review petition stated that in holding that the votes of defecting members must be disregarded and not counted, the apex court had ignored a principle of constitutional interpretation that was consistently followed and upheld by it.
Therefore, the holding of this court in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the order merits reconsideration and review by this court, the petition said.
It requested the apex court to retract its opinion and noted that Article 95 of the Constitution had become ineffective because of its decision.The application further said that the court could neither draft nor rewrite the Constitution and added that the opinion formed by the court was tantamount to interference in the Constitution.
It said that according to Article 63A, the defecting lawmakers will not be de-seated.
The federal government and the Election C0mmission of Pakistan have been made parties in the petition.
Ahead of its ouster, the PTI government had filed a presidential reference for the interpretation of Article 63-A, asking the apex court about the "legal status of the vote of party members when they are clearly involved in horse-trading and change their loyalties in exchange for money".