23/07/2022
PLD 2022 SC 488
منحرف اراکین سے متعلق آرٹیکل 63 اے کی تشریح سے متعلق ریفرنس پر سپریم کورٹ کا اکثریتی فیصلہ.
آئین پاکستان کے آرٹیکل 63 اے کی تشریح کے لیے صدارتی ریفرنس پر سپریم کورٹ نے تین دو کے اکثریتی فیصلے میں کہا ہے کہ منحرف اراکین کا ووٹ شمار نہیں ہوگا اور پارلیمان ان کی نااہلی کی مدت کے لیے قانون سازی کرسکتی ہے۔
سیاسی جماعتوں کے منحرف اراکین سے متعلق اس ریفرنس کی سماعت سپریم کورٹ کے پانچ رکنی لارجر بینچ نے کی جس میں چیف جسٹس آف پاکستان عمر عطا بندیال، جسٹس اعجاز الاحسن، جسٹس منیب اختر، جسٹس مظہر عالم میاں خیل اور جسٹس جمال خان مندوخیل شامل تھے۔
اس اکثریتی فیصلے میں کہا گیا ہے کہ آرٹیکل 63 اے پارلیمانی جمہوری نظام میں سیاسی جماعتوں کو تحفظ فراہم کرتا ہے اور انحراف سیاسی جماعتوں کو کمزور کرنے کے مترادف ہے۔ نااہلی کی مدت سے متعلق ریفرنس کے چوتھے سوال پر عدالت نے کوئی جواب نہیں دیا اور ریفرنس نمٹا دیا گیا ہے۔
دوسری جانب جسٹس مظہر عالم میاں خیل اور جسٹس جمال خان مندوخیل نے اختلافی نوٹ لکھے ہیں۔ انھوں نے اختلاف کیا ہے کہ انحراف کرنے والے رکن کے ووٹ کا شمار ہوگا مگر پارلیمان کے پاس اختیار ہے کہ اس پر قانون سازی کرے۔
آئین کا آرٹیکل 63 اے کیا ہے؟
۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
آئین کے آرٹیکل 63 اے کے مطابق کسی رکن پارلیمنٹ کو انحراف کی بنیاد پر نااہل قرار دیا جا سکتا ہے۔
وہ اس صورت میں کہ اگر رکن پارلیمان وزیراعظم یا وزیر اعلیٰ کے انتخابات کے لیے اپنی پارلیمانی پارٹی کی طرف سے جاری کردہ کسی بھی ہدایت کے خلاف ووٹ دیتا ہے یا عدم اعتماد کا ووٹ نہیں دیتا تو اس سے نااہل قرار دیا جاسکتا ہے۔
آئین کے اس آرٹیکل میں کہا گیا ہے کہ اس سلسلے میں پارٹی سربراہ کو تحریری طور پر اعلان کرنا ہوگا کہ متعلقہ رکن اسمبلی منحرف ہوگیا ہے تاہم ریفرنس دائر کرنے سے پہلے پارٹی سربراہ ’منحرف رکن کو وضاحت دینے کا موقع فراہم کرے گا۔‘
اگر پارٹی کا سربراہ وضاحت سے مطمئن نہیں ہوتا تو پھر پارٹی سربراہ اعلامیہ سپیکر کو بھیجے گا اور سپیکر وہ اعلامیہ چیف الیکشن کمشنر کو بھیجے گا۔
ریفرنس موصول ہونے کے 30 دن میں الیکشن کمیشن کو اس ریفرنس پر فیصلہ دینا ہوگا۔
آرٹیکل کے مطابق اگر چیف الیکشن کمشنر کی طرف سے ریفرنس کے حق میں فیصلہ آجاتا ہے تو مذکورہ رکن ’ایوان کا حصہ نہیں رہے گا اور اس کی نشست خالی ہو جائے گی۔‘
For detailed reasons to be recorded later and subject to what is set out therein by way of amplification or otherwise, by majority of three to two (Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail dissenting) these matters are disposed of together in the following terms:
1. The first question referred by the President relates to the proper approach to be taken to the interpretation and application of Article 63A of the Constitution. In our view, this provision cannot be read and applied in isolation and in a manner as though it is aloof from, or indifferent to, whatever else is provided in the Constitution. Nor can Article 63A be understood and applied from the vantage point of the member who has earned opprobrium and faces legal censure as a defector by reason of his having acted or voted (or abstained from voting) in a manner contrary to what is required of him under clause (1) thereof. Rather, in its true perspective this Article is an expression in the Constitution itself of certain aspects of the fundamental rights that inhere in political parties under clause (2) of Article 17. The two provisions are intertwined. In its essence Article 63A functions to protect, and ensure the continued coherence of, political parties in the legislative arena where they are the primary actors in our system of parliamentary democracy, which is one of the salient features of the Constitution. Political parties are an integral aspect of the bedrock on which our democracy rests. Their destabilization tends to shake the bedrock, which can potentially put democracy itself in peril. Defections are one of the most pernicious ways in which political parties can be destabilized. Indeed they can delegitimize parliamentary democracy itself, which is an even more deleterious effect. Defections rightly stand condemned as a cancer afflicting the body politic. They cannot be countenanced.
2. It follows that Article 63A must be interpreted in a purposive and robust manner, which accords with its spirit and intent. Ideally, the Article should not need to be invoked at all; its mere existence, a brooding presence, should be enough. Put differently, the true measure of its effectiveness is that no member of a Parliamentary Party ever has to be declared a defector. Article 63A should therefore be given that interpretation and application as accords with, and is aligned as closely as possible to, the ideal situation. The pith and substance of Article 63A is to enforce the fundamental right of political parties under Article 17 that, in particular in the legislative arena, their cohesion be respected, and protected from unconstitutional and unlawful assaults, encroachments and erosions. It must therefore be interpreted and applied in a broad manner, consistent with fundamental rights. It also follows that if at all there is any conflict between the fundamental rights of the collectivity (i.e., the political party) and an individual member thereof it is the former that must prevail. The first question is answered accordingly.
3 Turning to the second question and keeping in mind the answer to the first, it is our view that the vote of any member (including a deemed member) of a Parliamentary Party in a House that is cast contrary to any direction issued by the latter in terms of para (b) of clause (1) of Article 63A cannot be counted and must be disregarded, and this is so regardless of whether the Party Head, subsequent to such vote, proceeds to take, or refrains from taking, action that would result in a declaration of defection. The second question referred to this Court stands answered in the foregoing terms.
4. As regards the third question, it is our view that a declaration of defection in terms of Article 63A can be a disqualification under Article 63, in terms of an appropriate law made by Parliament under para (p) of clause (1) thereof. While it is for Parliament to enact such legislation it must be said that it is high time that such a law is placed on the statute book. If such legislation is enacted it should not amount to a mere slap on the wrist but must be a robust and proportionate response to the evil that it is designed to thwart and eradicate. The question stands answered accordingly.
5. The fourth question referred to this Court is stated in terms that are vague, and too broad and general. It is therefore returned unanswered.
6. This short order disposes of pending matters under Article 186 as well as Article 184(3). What has been said herein above is to be read and understood as a simultaneous exercise of (and thus relatable to) both the jurisdictions that vest in this Court under the said provisions, read also in the case of the latter with the jurisdiction conferred by Article 187.
