Lawyers praise SC verdict, question timing – Pakistan’s Article 63-A

The legal fraternity hailed the Supreme Court’s decision to accept a review petition against the 2022 verdict on the defection clause under Article 63-A. The ruling ensures that lawmakers’ votes against party lines in specific instances will be counted, a relief for the government seeking constitutional amendments.

Legal experts question the timing

While many experts welcomed the decision, concerns were raised about the timing and bench composition. Barrister Asad Rahim Khan noted that the review petition coincided with failed constitutional amendments, leading to doubts about the bench’s formation.

Timing shadows decision

Lawyer Basil Nabi Malik supported the decision but highlighted concerns about the hurried proceedings casting shadows over its validity, suggesting a possible overreach in interpreting Article 63-A.

Hasty hearings raise questions

Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii criticized the decision, highlighting potential consequences for parliamentary independence and the judiciary’s autonomy. He raised questions about the sudden and rushed nature of the hearings.

Much-needed corrective step

Barrister Yasser Latif Hamdani applauded the decision as a corrective measure to the 2022 verdict, which he deemed biased. He stressed the importance of upholding individual MPs’ voting rights.

Respecting dissent in the Constitution

Former attorney general Ashtar Ausaf emphasized the beauty of dissent in democracy and the Constitution, stating that the decision corrected a previous misstep in judicial history.

Challenges to the decision

Barrister Rida Hosain criticized the decision for defying legal principles, highlighting concerns about the bench’s constitution. She questioned the bench’s legitimacy and handling of the case.

Restoring legislative autonomy

Lawyer Ayman Zafar praised the decision for empowering elected officials and restoring legislative autonomy. She acknowledged concerns about judicial independence and impartiality in light of the decision.

Impact on political reforms

As the ruling may affect ongoing political reforms, lawyer Zainab Shahid raised alarm about the decision’s context and potential manipulation through bought or coerced votes, calling for attention to uphold constitutional integrity.