ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, in a major decision, on Tuesday issued the verdict that the dissident members of a parliamentary party cannot cast votes against their party’s directives.

The court, issuing its verdict on the presidential reference seeking the interpretation of Article 63(A) of the constitution, said that the article concerned cannot be interpreted alone.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court wrapped up the hearing of reference filed by President Arif Alvi.

The reference was filed in the apex court in March after the Opposition parties submitted a no-trust motion against the then prime minister Imran Khan.

A five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail heard the case.

The PTI government had approached the SC in a bid to stop its dissenting lawmakers from voting against Imran Khan and had sought a lifetime disqualification for those who attempted to deviate from the party’s direction.

Today’s hearing

At the outset of today’s hearing, the PML-N counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan had submitted more arguments before the bench.

Newly-appointed Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf Ali argued that the court is reviewing the reference in an advisory authority, the president may ask for an opinion on a legal question or a matter of public interest, but the president has not sent a reference on such issues in the past. We also need to see the background of this matter, he said.

Ashtar Ausaf said that it is necessary to see whether Article 63-A is a complete code and whether there is a need to add anything in the said provision of the Constitution. “It is also necessary to see whether the vote will be counted by deviating from the party policy.”

At this, Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that the president does not need to seek a legal opinion from the attorney general for sending a presidential reference. “The president can send a reference on a legal question under Article 186,” the judge remarked.

The court asked the attorney general if he was distancing himself from the reference. On this, the AGP said, “I have not received any instructions from the government, I am assisting the court in the case.”

The court asked, “Are you saying the reference is inadmissible? Are you saying that the reference should be returned without a reply?”

Justice Muneeb said that the former AGP was of the view that the reference was admissible and now as attorney general you can give your position.

In response to the judge’s query, Ashtar Ausaf said that the president should have filed the reference after seeking the opinion of the legal experts on the matter. “If there was any contradiction in the opinion of the legal experts then the president could have sent the reference [for clarity].”

During the hearing, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that the court is hearing the case for more than a month. “Do not insist on the technical issues. The matter has gone beyond admissibility now.”