KARACHI: A number of legal and moral questions have arisen after yestersday’s decision by the five member bench hearing a Presidential reference sent by Imran Khan’s government regarding member of Parliament who intend to vote against party or party policy/decision.
President Arif Alvi on recommendation from the then Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan facing a revolt within party lines sent a reference to President of Pakistan which was then filed before the highest court of the country.
The question posed was that if a MNA/MPA elect intends to vote against his own party policy what will be his fate. Whether a member of parliament will be debarred from voting or vote casted by him will be counted or not in any decisive motion before an elected house.
The constitution has a defections clause which says that if a member votes against party in any motion before the house he will be termed a “defector” and once he casted vote, leader of party to which such member belong will be proceeded against by the party head. The party head after issuance of a show cause notice will sent his case to the Speaker/Chairman who will forward it to the Election Commission of Pakistan so that a defector be “de-seated” and his seat be declared “vacant” and fresh elections be held.
The recent decision by apex court by a 3-2 majority opened a new debate in the country. The first is constitution of benches by the Chief Justices who is empowered to include judges in any bench. Whether it was more appropriate to have a full court hear this most important question, a land mark occasion for political life and democracy of the country.
The second and fore most question is that whether any person can be punished for an act he is yet to commit. Whether defection clause comes into operation once a member elect intends to do so or will comes into effect once he votes against his party or leadership and once he commits such a “big sin” he will be punished by being “un-seated”.
Morally once a member disagrees with a policy decision of political party he belongs to, the best way is to resign from membership, vacating the seat he returned from on a ticket from his party. He would return if he wins in bye-election.
The third question will be that whether the apex court can only interpret a constitutional provision or could re-write it and whether it shall be the sole decision of Parliamentarian to decide on the questions asked in the said reference.
The reference is likely to further divide the already divided society and bring in more confusion in political culture of the country. Whether the minority decision is more akin to constitutional provisions or majority decision is. This question is likely to haunt this nation unless decided by Parliament itself which is the supreme body.
So for the time being the division mongers are harping tunes of devastation while democracy is in peril. The judgment shall bind the nation not.