Justice Bandial remarks constitution ambiguous about disqualification

Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial has remarked that the Constitution is ambiguous about the definition of disqualification, asking the attorney general of Pakistan to explain to the court when would a member be disqualified for life, reported 24NewsHD TV channel. 

A five-judge larger bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Bandial was hearing the presidential reference filed by the attorney general for the interpretation of Article 63-A.

Chief Justice Bandial observed that nowhere in the constitution it was made clear that one should remain loyal to his party or not. He said that Article 62 (1) talks about the qualification but Article 62 (1) F of Constitution is ambiguous about the disqualification. He asked the attorney general of Pakistan to explain to the court when would a member be disqualified for life. 

CJP Bandial remarked that the parliament only wrote word ‘de-seat’ in the law and did not elaborate any further. We want that democratic values should be followed, he added.  

The CJP further remarked: “One who breaks trust is called trust-breacher (khain). And those who do not give vote to their party, they commit dishonesty and dishonesty is a big sin.” 

The chief justice inquired whether members of the party submitted their declaration vowing their commitment to the party discipline. 

Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that voters put their stamps on the election symbol, not on the name of any person. A member who contests election on party ticket is bound to follow his party’s policy, he said adding that an action would be taken against those who would vote against the party policy. 

Justice Ijaz further said that the president asked for the interpretation of the constitution and the court could not deviate from it. “There is likelihood that we can send the reference back,” he added. 

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel inquired if the prime minister violated the constitution, should the member still vote for him. In this case, is it possible that any member can show his no-confidence on the prime minister if the latter takes some decision against the interests of the country, he asked. He inquired what kind of violations of party discipline would warrant the constitutional consequences.

The attorney general said that it’s strange that the conscience of party members suddenly awoke when they entered the Sindh House. 

Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that in our political system, those who deserted party they were called ‘lota’ (turncoats).  

However, the AGP assured the court to complete his arguments by Monday. 

At the outset of the hearing, AGP Khalid Jawed Khan submitted his written response to the court. In his response, he stated that there was a difference between use of right of vote for a common citizen and Member of Parliament. The Parliament Member is bound to follow the party policy. An estranged member after tendering his resignation can go back to people and contest election. A person who takes money to cast his vote against his party can never represent people, the AGP said adding that a member’s vote belongs to the party and he could not cast his vote against his party. 

He further pleaded that the disqualification under Article 63-A should be for life. 

“The national or foreign elements want to topple the government after purchasing the MNAs. If we allow this thing to happen, then people will lose their trust in the parliamentary democracy, he emphasized. 

Reporter Imanat Gishkori