SC adjourns hearing on defection clause review plea after Justice Munib withdraws
The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing regarding a review petition that challenges its previous ruling on the defection clause outlined in Article 63-A of the Constitution. This decision came after Justice Munib Akhtar opted not to participate in the five-member bench.
Initially, the bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, included Justices Aminuddin, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Mazhar Alam, and Munib.
However, when the hearing commenced today, Justice Munib was absent, prompting the Chief Justice to adjourn the session until tomorrow (Tuesday). He mentioned that efforts would be made to have Justice Munib rejoin the bench.
“We will attempt to bring Justice Munib Akhtar back; if not, we will need to reconstitute the bench,” the Chief Justice stated.
In his correspondence, Justice Munib clarified that he did not voluntarily withdraw from the bench, asserting he could not participate in a bench formed by the Practice and Procedure Committee.
He requested that his letter be added to the case record, but CJP Isa responded that this could not be accommodated. The Chief Justice indicated it would have been more suitable for Justice Munib to express his views while serving on the bench.
While CJP Isa acknowledged Justice Munib’s perspective, he emphasized the significance of the Article 63-A case, which has been pending for over two years.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had approached the Supreme Court in 2022, requesting a review of the interpretation concerning Article 63(A) related to how dissidents are treated.
On May 17, 2022, the Supreme Court, while concluding a presidential reference regarding Article 63(A), ruled that votes cast by dissident members of Parliament (MPs) against their party’s directives should not be counted.
In a divided decision, three judges, then-CJP Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Munib, agreed on this point, while Justices Mandokhail and Mazhar opposed the ruling.
The SCBA filed a petition urging the apex court to take its stance back on the paragraph concerning the exclusion of dissidents’ votes.
It asserted that these votes should be counted in accordance with the Constitution, mentioning the dissidents should only be de-seated, while arguing that the Court’s previous ruling breach constitutional provisions.
