Unbridled power to PM encourages ‘dictatorship’, says SC judge

ISLAMABAD: Unbridled power to prime minister in determining the constitutional and fundamental right of his party parliamentarians would result in a culture of civil dictatorship, observed Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail of the Supreme Court in his dissenting note on the presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63A of the Constitution.

The apex court, in its verdict by a majority of three to two, on May 17 held that Article 63A that dealt with defection ensured fundamental rights of the parliamentary party rather than an individual lawmaker, therefore the vote casted contrary to the party lines should not be counted.

In a 15-page dissenting note on the reference, Justice Mandokhail observed: “The vote in the parliament is not the fundamental right of the party, rather is a fundamental right of a member, to be exercised in the interest of people.” Since the defector was ready and willing to pay the price for defection, the right of the political party stood protected to award its symbol to any person to contest by-election, he reasoned.

No parliamentarian could be treated to be no longer ‘sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen’ simply on the declaration of a party head and that too without due process and fair trial, Justice Mandokhail said.

Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel has already issued his dissenting note, whereas the detailed reasons of the majority judges, namely Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar, is still awaited.

Justice Mandokhail explained that giving unbridled power to the premier would create the culture of civil dictatorship, thus encouraging a situation where no member would then have the right to remove PM even if the latter himself no longer remains sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen or if his policies were against the state, the Constitution, the interest of the constituents, the injunctions of Islam or even contrary to the party manifesto.

For these reasons, the Constitution makers intentionally did not include the word “disqualification” of a member for any period of time in Article 63A,” Justice Mandokhail noted, adding that the Constitution permitted every member to cast his vote “freely” and “according to his conscience”, subject to reasonable restrictions.