Supreme Court ruling: ‘Party chiefs cannot influence legislators’
Apex court annuls opening clause of Article 63-A.
Supreme Court. PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that swaying lawmakers to adhere to party lines on issues related to constitutional amendments is a clear violation of their oath.
Annulling clause (1) (b) of Article 63 A of the Constitution, which prohibits lawmakers from defecting, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said that party chiefs cannot be allowed to influence legislators on constitutional matters.
“The Constitution itself stipulates that before assuming office, each member of parliament must take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” the judge said.
Under Article 63 A, which deals with party discipline, lawmakers can be disqualified from parliament if found guilty of defection from their respective parties.
“It is these chosen representatives who have to perform the function of amending the Constitution and in doing so they have to rise above personal interests and inclinations in line with their oath, to protect, preserve and defend the legal framework,” said Justice Khawaja, who is due to take over the reins as chief justice of the apex court later this month.
“A parliamentarian, in matters of constitutional amendments is the chosen representative of the people and not a representative of a political party or a party head,” the judge added.
Justice Khawaja observed the clause empowers party chiefs to steer votes in parliament even if law prohibits their election as a parliamentarian by virtue of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.
Quoting the contentious clause, the judge said “In my view this amendment represents the extraordinary danger that a member of parliament is made susceptible to external pressure on an issue which has no nexus with stability of parliamentary democracy.”
Criticising intra-party elections, the judge said that the process of selecting party chiefs lacked transparency as polls within parties are not conducted or overseen by any independent body.
“Even if there is an election oversight body within the party structure, it may be rendered ineffective or its decisions are ignored,” he added.
In his ruling the judge said that prior to the eighteenth amendment, by virtue of clause (4) of Article 17 every political party was obliged to hold intra-party elections to select its office-bearers and leaders. This requirement has been done away with and as a result intra-party
elections are no longer required by the Constitution, the verdict added.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 7th, 2015.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that swaying lawmakers to adhere to party lines on issues related to constitutional amendments is a clear violation of their oath.
Annulling clause (1) (b) of Article 63 A of the Constitution, which prohibits lawmakers from defecting, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja said that party chiefs cannot be allowed to influence legislators on constitutional matters.
“The Constitution itself stipulates that before assuming office, each member of parliament must take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” the judge said.
Under Article 63 A, which deals with party discipline, lawmakers can be disqualified from parliament if found guilty of defection from their respective parties.
“It is these chosen representatives who have to perform the function of amending the Constitution and in doing so they have to rise above personal interests and inclinations in line with their oath, to protect, preserve and defend the legal framework,” said Justice Khawaja, who is due to take over the reins as chief justice of the apex court later this month.
“A parliamentarian, in matters of constitutional amendments is the chosen representative of the people and not a representative of a political party or a party head,” the judge added.
Justice Khawaja observed the clause empowers party chiefs to steer votes in parliament even if law prohibits their election as a parliamentarian by virtue of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.
Quoting the contentious clause, the judge said “In my view this amendment represents the extraordinary danger that a member of parliament is made susceptible to external pressure on an issue which has no nexus with stability of parliamentary democracy.”
Criticising intra-party elections, the judge said that the process of selecting party chiefs lacked transparency as polls within parties are not conducted or overseen by any independent body.
“Even if there is an election oversight body within the party structure, it may be rendered ineffective or its decisions are ignored,” he added.
In his ruling the judge said that prior to the eighteenth amendment, by virtue of clause (4) of Article 17 every political party was obliged to hold intra-party elections to select its office-bearers and leaders. This requirement has been done away with and as a result intra-party
elections are no longer required by the Constitution, the verdict added.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 7th, 2015.