ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the dissident Members of the Parliament (MPs) cannot cast their votes against the directives of their parliamentary party.

In its verdict on the presidential reference filed by President Dr Arif Alvi on March 21 seeking the interpretation of Article 63(A) of the Constitution related to defecting lawmakers, the court ruled that the law cannot be interpreted in isolation.

In a 3:2 split decision, the court agreed that the vote of dissident members should not be counted.

The court explained that Article 63A acts to “protect, and ensure the continued coherence of, political parties in the legislative arena”. It added that the parties act “are the primary actors” in the parliamentary democracy. “Political parties are an integral aspect of the bedrock on which our democracy rests. Their destabilisation tends to shake the bedrock, which can potentially put democracy itself in peril,” the verdict said.

It said that defections can “delegitimise parliamentary democracy itself”, adding that it condemns that act which is a “cancer afflicting the body politic”. “They cannot be countenanced,” the verdict stated.

The judgment states 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 judgment states that 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 court ruled that ‘in its “view” an MP’s vote cast contrary to party directions “cannot be counted and must be disregarded”.

About the disqualification of members, the court rejected the PTI’s plea, saving the lawmakers from permanently being barred from the Parliament.

The court said that in its opinion a “declaration of defection” under Article 63A can be dealt with by the “appropriate law made by Parliament”.

“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 court ruled.