The Supreme Court’s decision in the review of the Presidential Reference on Article 63(A) has paved the way for the government to win over PTI-backed independents to its ranks when it tries to bring much-heralded changes in the Constitution, setting up a Constitutional Court, and basically pulling the government and the establishment through all sorts of difficulties. However, it may be seen as restoring some sort of balance between the concept of legislators as representatives of a party and nothing else, and delegates from their constituencies who would decide on issue to issue, according to their constituents’ wishes. While it is true that people, including politicians, organize themselves into political parties to fight elections, does that mean that party leaders are supposed to have a permanent lien on their votes in their assembly?
There is an argument that party leaders are such gigantic and dominating figures that candidates receive votes for them to become PM, not so the constituency might be represented. There were complaints that the Court had rewritten the Constitution in its previous decision; that it has consciously tried to redress. However, the practical situation is that SIC MNAs, as PTI-backed independents are recognized in the National Assembly, do not have the threat of being unseated by their party leader. Interestingly, the Speaker of the National Assembly has forwarded to the Election Commission the cases of the Treasury MNAs for unseating, one from the PML(Q) and one the PML(N). The threat of being de-seated is problematic in the case of PIC MNAs, as who would issue the necessary direction?
The opposition of a party’s rights to a constituency’s rights is further complicated when one is to consider if a constituency is to elect a representative and then to forget about him until he comes to ask for their votes, and then to judge whether he has done well enough to deserve re-election, or whether he is to be supervised, and must obtain a direction on each vote he casts. The discussion may appear purely academic, but it goes to the heart of Article 63(A) and the struggles the Supreme Court is having. However, the judgement contains no suggestions for Parliament, nor does it point out any lacunae in the present provision. However, this is so ticklish a matter that it is likely that the courts will be approached again an again.
