Justice Munib Akhtar of the Supreme Court noted on Monday that a member’s individual vote in a no-confidence proceeding is considered a “collective right” after joining a political party.
Members’ individual votes have no “status” under Article 95(ii), which deals with how a no-confidence motion against the prime minister is brought in. He added that the court previously made similar observations in cases involving former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. It was his understanding that a person’s vote was regarded as a “collective” right once they joined a political party.
“Anarchy,” he said during the hearing of a petition from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), which requested the court’s intervention to prevent “anarchy” and direct all state functionaries to act in accordance with the Constitution and law ahead of the no-trust vote against Prime Minister Imran Khan. The petition was examined by a two-judge panel, including Pakistan’s Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Akhtar.
Several opposition leaders, including Shehbaz Sharif, Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, were in attendance. The ruling PTI, PML-N, PPP, JUI-F, Balochistan National Party (Mengal), and Awami National Party were all served notices by the court on Saturday through their respective secretaries, but all parties will be represented by legal counsel at the hearings.
The court requested assistance from the six political parties, including the proponents of the no-trust motion in the National Assembly, and ordered the Islamabad police chief to produce a comprehensive report on Friday’s breaching of Sindh House by PTI activists. For their assistance in ensuring a lawful and peaceful end to the no-confidence vote process, the court also issued notices to the respondent parties, as required by Article 95 of the country’s constitution.
Participants in the case include the federal government through the secretaries of interior and defence, as well as Prime Minister Akhilesh Yadav, Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, Speaker and Secretary of that body, and the Chief Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police in Islamabad. At today’s hearing, Justice Bandial said that the bar wanted MNAs to be allowed to vote for whoever they wanted, remarking that if the SCBA went into too much detail, Justice Akhtar’s observation would become an “obstacle”.
The chief justice said, “The question is whether individual choice can differ from the party’s stance.”At a hearing where Justice Akhtar questioned which article allowed parliamentarians to vote in their individual capacities, counsel for the bar, Mansoor Usman, argued that they should. Article 66, which deals with the privileges of members, was brought up by the counsel, and Justice Akhtar inquired once more as to how that provision gave the right to vote in an individual capacity.
The judge said, “According to Article 63, the case of a member’s vote can be brought to the court.”
“No member’s right to vote is absolute,” the chief justice said.
