ISLAMABAD : (Web Desk)- Larger bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan is conducting hearing on presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63-A.
During the previous hearing, SC remarked that the court will try to give decision on reference soon and parliamentary proceedings will not be delayed due to presidential reference.
The Attorney General told the court that the assembly proceeding will not be affected by the presidential reference and no one will be stopped from using the right to cast vote. He added that what will happen after the vote, this is the real question in the reference.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) submitted its reply in Supreme Court SC and stated that members of National Assembly cast their votes on no-confidence motion in their individual capacity and as per Article 95 of the constitution vote is not right of any political party.
The association further said that members cannot be barred from voting under Article 63(A) as public runs government through their elected representatives.
SCBA added every vote that has been casted will have to be counted as per Article 95 and every lawmaker is independent in choosing which side to vote for.
It was further stated that Article 63 does not disqualify members for voting against party directions.
Disqualification for voting against party to weaken democracy: JUI-F
Jamiyat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) submitted its reply to the SC and stated that the Speaker of the house cannot be given the authority to reject the vote of members of the Parliament.
JUI-F also claimed that if the Members of National Assembly (MNA) are disqualified for life on the grounds of voting against their party, it will further weaken the already weak democracy of Pakistan.
The court should refrain from overlapping the supremacy of the Parliament, JUI-F stated in its reply.
PML-N said in its response submitted in the SC that Article 63A and Article 95 are clear and every lawmaker has the right to vote.
The party said that the vote of every MNA will be counted and that filing of the presidential reference is a premature and unnecessary move.
The reply further said that that the apex court “has the authority to interpret the Constitution but not to amend it.”