Lawmaker is not bound to declare loyalty to party: CJP Bandial


ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial observed on Friday that the Constitution didn’t bind a legislator to declare constancy to a political party.

While pertaining to an argument by Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Khalid Jawed Khan in which he’d tried to equate dereliction under Composition 63A of the Constitution in the presidential reference with that of “ Khayanat” ( deceitfulness), the CJP observed that Khayanat was a serious offence and the holy Quran speaks of serious discipline for it.

But the question demanding attention is whether the Constitution speaks of deceitfulness to a political party or to the ingredients who handpick lawmakers.

The AGP will have a good case if he established that those who switched their fidelity had betrayed their choosers, the CJP observed.

He made the reflections during the hail by a five- member bench of a presidential reference seeking interpretation of Composition 63-A of the Constitution.

The CJP wondered why congress chose to circumscribe disqualification tode-seating of a member indeed though it had the powers to add further vittles like a life-long bar from being tagged to any council.

Was there some fear behind this elision, Chief Justice Bandial wondered.

He observed that through the 18th Correction, congress had indeed added discipline to Composition 62 (1) (f), but made it tentative upon a protestation by a court of law. The observation came when the AGP stressed that some of the members who had taken retreat at the Sindh House were tagged on reserved seats under Composition 51 (6) of the Constitution, which addresses of special seats for women and nonages proportionate to the number of seats won by a party.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel wondered whether members were bound to follow the dictates of their party head if the high minister loses trust of the maturity or if an action went against the public interest.

“ Would it not be better for the President to call a meeting of all the administrative parties for evolving a agreement than constituting a reference before the court,” Justice Mandokhel wondered.

“ This is what former President Ghulam Ishaq Khan used to do — holding meetings to oust the government of the day,” the AGP fooled.

Justice Mandokhel also observed could the court exercise judicial function while sitting to interpret Composition 63A in the premonitory governance especially when the Supreme Court can not indeed add a full stop in the constitution.

“ What’s the issue with the President that he’s seeking our opinion,” Justice Mandokhel observed, stressing that he’d be the last person to favour‘Lotas’ ( betrayers). Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel observed that the government was alive about dereliction when factual dereliction had taken place.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan spoke of a class form which requires an undertaking that the member would be bound by the party discipline and must face consequences in case of breach of trust.

An occasion has arisen as the President had sought interpretation of certain provision of the constitution and it becomes the job of the top court to interpret the same. “ We may refuse to interpret as the constitution court or interpret if there are certain confusion or return the same,” Justice Ahsan observed.

The AGP said the laws were made before the crime was committed and explained that the demand of pledge of the high minister, as well as lawgivers, were different. Also, the party issued a instrument for the allocation of a symbol for election by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) if the member subscribes to the party fiat.

The AGP argued that in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, the elevation of leaders were similar that parties thrive on an existent’s name. To substantiate, the AGP cited the illustration of elderly counsel Raza Rabbani who cried his heart out when the military courts were being established through a indigenous correction, but chose to bounce along party lines.

Any disagreement on programs in the party shouldn’t restate into vote against the high minister, the AGP stated, adding unless “ you ramify your relationship with the party you belong to, you can not produce relationship with any other party”.

Still, the person should write two lines and simply abdicate since dereliction isn’t a emblem of honour, “ if someone’s heart has awakened suddenly.”

Let congress decide by evolving a agreement, observed Justice Mandokhel.

The attorney general contended that the Constitution always speaks through the Supreme Court.

Leave A Reply