De-Seating is another Option while lifetime ban is acute menace – Article 63-A – Latest News Update



In the wake of article 63-A, the duration of punishment is not mentioned in the article, so lifetime ban in parliamnetary political issues is a severe punishment, Chief Justice of Pakistan – Umar Ata Bandial on Wednesdat observed. Betrayal is also a strict and strict punishment. The Chief Justice of Pakistan said that inorder to progrees pakistna by leaps and bounds, a stable and independent government isneeded and political tussle between different political parties needed to end. As this tussel btween them is carried on since 1970s which is the major problem and a hurdle in the stability of Pakistan.


Article 63-A of constitution of Pakistan is related to betrayal of the lawmakers if they committ defeciton. Lifetime ban is not appropriate punishment for defection. There is another option available which is De-seating. But the court said there should be severe menac for those who violate the law for theri monitory purpose, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) reported in latest news update. The committe further revised and recallled that PTI also violated the law when they gave their vote in favour of Hamza Shahbaz when he was going to elect as Chief Minsiter of Punjab. They violated on 16 April 2022. 

Article 63-A

These were the words of Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial as a five-member bench, which included Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, resumed hearing the presidential reference, which was seeking the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution, which deals with disqualification of legislators for defection from their party.

Need of Stable government for Pakistan

“A stable administration and government is required for the advancement of the country,” the top justice stated, adding that “the [game of] musical chairs” that has been going on for power since the 1970s must come to an end.

While the court cannot modify the legislation, Justice Bandial stated that it cannot enable anybody to “become the benefit of negative measures.”

De-Seating is another Option

Justice Ijazul Ahsan stated that de-seating may be one method of dealing with defection, but he was unsure of what additional punishments could be used in conjunction with it.

He said that Item 63-A did not specify the length of time a person may be disqualified, and he questioned if the aforementioned article could be interpreted in conjunction with another.

“The question is, what would be the mechanism for disqualifying legislators who have defected?” Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel posed the question. “If the charge of receiving bribes has been levelled, what proof would be presented to support it?”

Defection is a Constitutional Offence

Defection, according to Justice Ahsan, is a constitutional offence in and of itself. “If elections are done in accordance with the law, then all of this would come to a stop.”

According to Justice Ahsan, defecting from a political party is an appropriate practise in his opinion. He inquired of advocate Mansoor Awan, counsel for the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), about this.

According to the SCBA’s guidance, “de-seating is legitimate for individuals who desert on the grounds of their conscience, but those who defect in exchange for monetary gains must face harsh punishment.”

At this point, Justice Muneeb Akhtar stated that people acting on their conscience should retire rather than defecting from the country. “I will not use the term “defector,” which is commonly used in the public to describe people who are defecting.”

PML-Q lawyer Advocate Azhar Siddique told the court at the opening of today’s session that the aim of Article 63-A was to prohibit parliamentarians from defecting, and that a constitutional change was also proposed to prevent the practise.

Violation of Law by PTI Legislators

He reminded the audience that on April 16, PTI legislators went against party policy and voted in favour of Hamza Shehbaz’s election as Punjab Chief Minister [in the Punjab Assembly] against the party’s opposition.

On the disqualification reference [taken up by the Election Commission of Pakistan], the Chief Justice stated that the court would be unable to provide a response. In the meantime, the ECP is still looking into the topic of defected legislators.

You may be be interested in reading: ECP rejects de-seating 20 dissident PTI members of parliament and dismisses references against them.

He answered by saying that his case did not involve disqualification, but rather “the theft of a mandate in broad sight.”

Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel stated that the subject needed to be investigated by the Electoral Commission of Pakistan, and that an appeal against the judgement of the election commission would finally reach the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

In his submission to the court, Attorney Siddique said that in India, the term “disqualification” is used instead of “de-seating” to refer to MPs who have defected.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice of Pakistan Bandial noted that a resolution for a no-confidence motion was presented in the house on March 28 and that a discussion on the reasons for bringing the motion should have taken place by March 31, according to the CJP.

“We have a responsibility to safeguard the Constitution, which is why we are hearing the reference for the interpretation of Article 63-A.”

Article 63-A might be interpreted in conjunction with Article 17(2)

According to Justice Akhtar, Article 63-A might be interpreted in conjunction with Article 17(2), which deals with freedom of association and emphasises that political parties have rights under the Constitution.

“Every citizen who is not in the service of Pakistan shall have the right to form or be a member of a political party, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, and such law shall provide that where the Federal Government declares that any political party has been formed or is operating in a manner prejudicial to the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, the Federal Government shall revoke the right of any citizen to form or be a member of a political party.”

Meanwhile, as the hearings progressed, the court requested help from Pakistan’s Attorney General, Advocate Ashtar Ausaf Ali, who told the court that he will offer arguments in the matter on Tuesday (May 17).

The chief justice asked the AGP whether he could read Article 63-A in a way that would promote “political and legal stability.” The AGP responded that he could. Ausaf answered by saying that the outcome of the court argument will determine which route to go in.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan stated that it was the responsibility of the party leader to decide whether to take action against a defected member or not.

One of the ideas, according to Justice Akhtar, was that the vote of a defected member should not be counted. He stated that political parties must maintain discipline in order to function well under the parliamentary form of governance.

According to the CJP, “our political system is under a great deal of turbulence, strain, and instability.” He went on to say that “we are here to address internal conflicts of the parties.”

Advocate Mansoor Awan, representing the Supreme Court Bar Association, claimed that the Constitution grants legislators the right to vote according to their conscience.

“If we accept your point of view, where will the political parties take their positions?” questioned Justice Akhtar, who was of the opinion that if Awan’s argument were accepted, the entire system would “fall,” as he put it.

He noted that the legislature sought to enhance the system by enacting a new Constitution in 1973. “Article 96 was removed in 1985, and elections were held on a non-partisan basis the following year,” says the author.

In his remarks, he stated that the Supreme Court determined in 1989 that elections should be held on a party basis and that political parties were endowed with certain privileges. In the following year, the Constitution was amended to include Article 63-A.

In response, Justice Bandial questioned if Article 63-A was only a “exhibit piece” of legislation.

According to Justice Mandokhel, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of expression, “yet it is also being urged that the period of imprisonment for defection be prolonged.”

The hearing was postponed until Monday as a result of this (March 16).

Article 63-A of the Constitution

The Constitution of India provides that a parliamentarian can be disqualified for defection if he “votes or abstains from voting in the House in contravention of any direction issued by his parliamentary party in relation to the election of the prime minister or chief minister; or a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or a money bill, or a Constitution (Amendment) Bill.”

A party leader must announce in writing that an MNA has deserted, according to the article, but the leader must first “give such member with a chance to plead cause as to why a similar statement should not be made against him” before proceeding with the declaration.


After providing the member with an opportunity to defend their position, the party leader will transmit the declaration to the speaker, who will then forward it to the chief election commissioner for consideration (CEC). The CEC will then have 30 days to validate or deny that the declaration was correct. After being confirmed by the CEC, the member “shall cease to be a member of the House and his seat shall become empty,” according to the Constitution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *