The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Thursday petitioned the Supreme Court for review of its May 17 decision on interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution by a larger bench.
The larger bench had given a 3-2 split decision on a presidential reference seeking the apex court’s interpretation of Article 63-A. Majority of judges opined that the votes of lawmakers who violated the party discipline would not be counted in the four instances outlined under the article.
These four instances are the election of the prime minister and chief minister; a vote of confidence or no-confidence; a constitution amendment bill; and a money bill.
The petition contended that the apex court’s interpretation in paragraphs one to three of its order was not in accordance with the letter and spirit, as well as the system of parliamentary democracy established by the Constitution.
In the first two paragraphs of its order, the SC elaborated on whether Article 63-A had a limited or broad, purpose-oriented interpretation. The SC said that the provision could not 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”.
The paragraphs described defections as a “cancer afflicting the body politic”.
“They cannot be countenanced,” the SC order said, adding that Article 63-A must be interpreted in a “purposive and robust manner”. “The pith and substance of Article 63-A is to enforce the fundamental right of political parties under Article 17 […] It must therefore be interpreted and applied in a broad manner, consistent with fundamental rights,” the SC concluded. In the third paragraph, the SC explained whether the votes of defecting lawmakers should be counted and given equal weightage.
The SC said the vote of any 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 63-A 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 SCBA said in its petition that in reaching the conclusion that the votes of defecting lawmakers were not to be counted, the “historical background and evolution of Article 63-A … had escaped the honourable court’s attention”. In this connection, the petition shared provisions of the Political Parties Act, which it said provided for the disqualification of lawmakers prior to the Constitution.
It also mentioned Article 96 of the Constitution, which the petition said provided for disregarding votes of defecting lawmakers for the first time. It was later replaced by Article 95, which omitted the clause for disregarding defecting votes.
Eventually, Article 63-A was inserted in the Constitution, the petition said, as it went on to elaborate on the provision.
“It is clear from the above, disregarding of defective votes was first incorporated into our constitutional framework at the time of commencement of the Constitution, in terms of the erstwhile Article 96,” the petition read.
