Explainer: Article 63A review and today’s Supreme Court ruling

ISLAMABAD: The five-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has unanimously struck down its earlier 2022 verdict concerning the defection clause under Article 63-A of the Constitution. The verdict came as a result of accepting a review petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).

The earlier ruling had declared that votes cast by lawmakers against party directives under Article 63-A should not be counted.

Section 63A review approved: SC issues unanimous verdict

Article 63-A is designed to prevent lawmakers from voting against the instructions of their party heads, with defection penalties including disqualification from the National Assembly and the loss of the defecting member’s seat.

A five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and including included Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhail presided over the hearing.

Justice Afghan replaced Justice Munib Akhtar, who had opted not to be part of the bench alongside senior puisne judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

As a result of today’s verdict, parliamentarians will now be able to vote across party lines. The vote will be counted and the defecting party member will also be able to retain their seat in the assembly unless the party leader files a disqualification reference against the defecting member.

SC adjourns Article 63A revision plea hearing amid heated exchanges

This paves the way for certain resolutions in the National Assembly to secure a two-thirds majority, even in the absence of any single party or coalition commanding those numbers on their own.

TODAY’S PROCEEDINGS

In today’s proceedings, the counsel for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Barrister Ali Zafar raised objections about the composition of the bench and argued that his client, PTI founder Imran Khan, should be allowed to appear via video link.

Zafar informed the court that he had met with Imran Khan the previous day but lamented that jail authorities were present during their discussion. He further insisted that Imran had instructed him to present certain points before the court.

Chief Justice Isa, however, steered the proceedings forward, urging Zafar to present his arguments, but Zafar persisted in stating Imran’s objections to the bench. The Chief Justice reminded him of his dual role as both counsel and an officer of the court, stressing the importance of upholding legal procedure rather than following every client instruction.

As Zafar pressed on about amendments proposed by the government, including a constitutional package allegedly promoting horse-trading, the Chief Justice warned him that such statements were serious accusations. “You are making a huge statement by claiming horse-trading,” Justice Isa said, hinting at possible contempt proceedings if the accusations were unfounded.

Justice Mandokhail clarified that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision on Article 63-A was an opinion, not a judgment.

Article 63A review plea: SC delves on vote counting and no-confidence motion

Eventually, Barrister Zafar announced that he was boycotting the proceedings on behalf of his client Imran Khan, who termed Chief Justice Isa’s presence to be conflict of interest.

In response, the Chief Justice dismissed Zafar’s objections and suggested appointing him as amicus curiae to assist the court in an advisory capacity rather than as counsel for Imran Khan, a role Zafar ultimately accepted.