The Supreme Court of Pakistan has unanimously accepted a review petition challenging its 2022 verdict on the defection clause under Article 63-A of the Constitution.
This recent ruling could have significant implications for future legislation, as it permits the counting of votes cast by lawmakers who go against party lines in critical parliamentary decisions.
The 2022 decision had ruled that votes cast in defiance of party directives in four key instances—electing the prime minister or chief minister, votes of confidence or no-confidence, constitutional amendments, and money bills—would not be counted.
However, the latest ruling, announced by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, reverses that stance, ensuring that such votes will now be counted. A detailed verdict will be issued later.
The decision arrives as the government seeks support to pass amendments to the Constitution, some of which relate to the judiciary.
The initial 2022 ruling, resulting from a presidential reference, had divided the bench 3-2, with former Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justices Ijazul Ahsan and Munib Akhtar favoring the majority opinion. Justices Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Jamal Khan Mandokhail dissented, arguing that further interpretation of Article 63-A would amount to rewriting the Constitution.
The review petition, filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), was heard by a five-member bench led by Chief Justice Isa, alongside Justices Mandokhail, Miankhel, Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Aminuddin Khan. The composition of the bench changed after Justices Akhtar and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah recused themselves due to concerns over a recent ordinance concerning bench formation.
During the hearing, Justice Isa raised questions about the earlier interpretation of Article 63-A. The court also dismissed objections raised by Imran Khan’s legal counsel regarding the bench’s constitution.
While lawyers have hailed the court’s decision as correct, many have raised concerns about the timing and manner of the proceedings. Barrister Asad Rahim pointed out that the review was brought shortly after a failed constitutional amendment that sought to limit the Supreme Court’s powers.
Lawyer Basil Nabi Malik agreed with the ruling but noted that the timing may cast doubts on its validity.
This ruling opens the door for potential changes in how parliamentary votes are counted, reinforcing the principle that lawmakers’ votes should be recognized, regardless of party loyalty. As the country watches the evolving political landscape, the decision is expected to have far-reaching consequences for future legislative efforts.
