Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Political Parties and Judicial Authority
Chief Justice of Pakistan, Qazi Faez Isa, stated that political parties are not subordinate to judges or the Chief Justice. He questioned who a judge is to claim that a member has defected, emphasizing that such authority lies with the party leader.
A five-member larger bench, led by Chief Justice Isa, is hearing review petitions regarding the interpretation of Article 63(A) of the Constitution.
During the hearing, the lawyer for former PTI chairman Imran Khan objected to the composition of the bench, refusing to proceed. In response, the Supreme Court appointed him as a judicial assistant.
Barrister Ali Zafar, starting his arguments as a judicial assistant, stated that the original request from the Supreme Court Bar was related to voting in a no-confidence motion. He argued that the Supreme Court wrongly conflated the presidential reference with constitutional petitions, noting that the court had dismissed the constitutional petitions by claiming it had already provided an opinion on the reference, thereby limiting the scope of review.
Regarding the interpretation of Article 63(A), Barrister Zafar expressed concerns about the bench, stating that the right to vote belongs to the parliament member, not to the political party.
Chief Justice Isa questioned who a judge is to declare that a member has defected, reiterating that the authority lies with the party leader to declare a defection. He pointed out that members of parliament or political parties are not under the authority of any judge or Chief Justice; rather, political parties are subordinate to their leaders.
Justice Aminuddin Khan asked who elects the head of the parliamentary party. Barrister Zafar responded that parliament members elect their parliamentary leader. Justice Jamal Mandokhel added that the right to vote belongs to the parliament member and questioned how this could be claimed as the political party’s right.
Chief Justice Isa inquired from the PPP’s lawyer, Farooq H. Naek, about the difference between a parliamentary party and a parliamentary leader. Naek explained that elections within the party occur under the Election Act, determining the party leader.
Barrister Zafar clarified that the parliamentary party directs its members on whether to vote or not. If a member fails to comply with the party’s directives, the party leader may send a reference for disqualification. Chief Justice Isa remarked that, in that case, voting against the party would be akin to a self-destructive act, as the vote would not count, and the member would lose their seat.
Barrister Zafar noted that members hope they won’t be disqualified and can retain their seats. The court emphasized that no one should be allowed to misuse their voting rights. Chief Justice Isa then questioned whether this interpretation is democratic, stating that judges are not elected and must remain within their jurisdiction, asserting that such remarks contradict democracy. He recalled that during martial law, everyone becomes a rubber stamp.
