PML-N terms it ‘pre-mature, unnecessary exercise’
ISLAMABAD
The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) on Thursday submitted its response to a reference filed in the Supreme Court by President Dr. Arif Alvi seeking the interpretation of Article 63(A).
The PPP stated that the reference doesn’t fall within the ambit of Article 186 of the Constitution under which the president can seek the top court’s opinion.
The court’s opinion on the matter will prejudice the right to appeal, the opposition party argued, adding Article 63(A) cannot be invoked against any member of the National Assembly before the process of a vote of no-confidence against a prime minister.
Earlier today, former Senate chairman Raza Rabbani approached the Supreme Court to become a party in the presidential reference.
He moved an application in the apex court stating that he headed a parliamentary committee on constitutional reforms that were introduced in the Constitution through the 18th Constitutional Amendment.
Raza Rabbani said he has the first-hand knowledge of the background discussions that led the then constitution makers to incorporate Article 63 (A) in the Constitution.
Meanwhile, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has submitted its reply to a presidential reference filed from President Arif Alvi in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, seeking opinion on article 63 (A) of the Constitution of Pakistan.
The PML-N has termed filing of the reference as an attempt to waste precious time of the apex court in its response filed by their counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan. The article 63 (A) and article 95 are clear and every member of the Parliament has the right to vote under the Constitution of Pakistan, it said and added that every vote casted by the MNA will be counted.
The presidential reference is a pre-mature and unnecessary exercise, the PML-N counsel said and added the court has the authority to give interpretation of the Constitution not the constitutional amendments.
A large bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, will hear resume hearing of the reference today. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) submitted in the apex court its reply to the presidential reference seeking the interpretation and scope of Article 63(A).
The SBCA stated that an individual MNA can participate in the proceeding of a vote of no-confidence against a prime minister under Article 95.
“An MNA’s right to vote is an individual right under Article 95 and this right doesn’t belong to the political party he or she belongs to,” the top lawyers body contended, adding no member of the lower house of Parliament could be barred from exercising the right to vote.
Article 63 doesn’t allow preemptive action against any MNA on the apprehension that they might defect from a parliamentary party, it said and added that every vote cast under Article 95 is liable to be counted.
The SBCA argued any MNA going against party directives during the proceedings of the vote of no-confidence cannot be disqualified under Article 63 (A). It said all the members of the National Assembly can freely exercise their right to vote.
