Connect with us

Latest News

The debate over counting dissenting votes

Published

on

If there’s one place where reality exists not as a line, but as a circle, it’s here. As the ruling party recoils towards its old haunt at D-Chowk, there are once again talks of both military extensions and possible calls from military extensions. And the question of whether or not a prime minister remains in office may, once again, be decided by the judiciary.

Whatever plans the government may have to interfere with the vote of no-confidence, they are likely to be challenged before the court. But now, as it turns out, the government has pre-emptively sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on the relationship between a vote of no-confidence and disqualification for defection. As two sides now wait on the Supreme Court, at the heart of it all will likely be the battle against redundancy.

The legislature passes laws and then leaves them for judges to interpret. So, as a safeguard against overly inspired interpretations, courts self-regulate through certain ‘rules of interpretation’. One of these is that if your chosen interpretation results in absurdity then you have to interpret it differently.

The two provisions of the constitution that provide the battleground are Articles 63A and 95. Article 63A provides for “disqualification on grounds of defection”, which includes a member’s voting contrary to the directions of their party in a vote of no-confidence against the prime minister (we’ll call this a ‘dissenting vote’, for now). And that vote of no-confidence is provided for in Article 95, under which a prime minister ceases to hold office if a majority of the National Assembly votes as such.

Those who oppose counting dissenting votes argue that allowing such votes would leave Article 63A hollow: if potentially purchased votes are counted, then what good is 63A? On the other side of the trench, what use is a vote of no-confidence if a significant portion of the National Assembly can’t even fill in their comments cards?

But this is anything but a paradox. One results in absurdity and the other in an outcome that is, at best, undesirable. Consider a government that comes to power under a super-majority: unless the party decides to go kamikaze, a vote of no-confidence would basically never be an option. That is to say that for the PML-N’s term beginning in 1997, when it swept about two-thirds of the seats in the National Assembly, Article 95 would have basically been dormant — an obvious absurdity.

Or consider if it had won further forty or so seats. Now, with over 80% of the seats in the National Assembly, the PML-N would have found itself insulated from even having someone table the resolution for a vote of no-confidence, let alone having people vote on it. Again, an absurdity.

But on the other hand, allowing dissenting votes protect the constitution. Preventing horse-trading and floor crossing is, indeed, important. But to argue that Article 63A can only do its job if dissenting votes are discarded is disingenuous. Prevention comes from consequences. 

Few would argue that being disqualified from the National Assembly is not such a consequence. You may argue that it doesn’t go far enough, but there’s no absurdity here. And the way to take it further is to have the legislature change the law, not to coax unelected judges into reading in terms that don’t exist.

While on reading in items that don’t exist, one provision that once did exist was Article 96(5).

Back when the vote of no-confidence was first introduced to the constitution of 1973, it was Article 96. And towards the end of Article 96 was a little clause declaring that if a voter from a political party cast a vote “in support of a resolution for a vote of no-confidence” while “the majority of the members of that political party in the National Assembly has cast its votes against the passing of such resolution”, then those votes in support would be “disregarded”. That clause was later removed from the constitution in 1985.

Clearly, parliament was not unaware of the option to disregard votes, but the legislature chose to delete it. Another principle of interpretation that courts use is that things that are ‘conspicuously absent’ from a law are not to be grafted into it by judges. The fact that this consequence no longer exists is, thus, a rather conspicuous absence.

Through the years, the legislature has wrestled with how to handle defection. It has expanded and contracted what ‘defection’ means for the purposes of disqualification, and it has tinkered with the consequences. 

At times, the Political Parties Act disqualified members of parliament only when they withdrew from a party, while votes contrary to the majority of the party’s membership were discarded. At others, votes were neither discarded nor were there personal consequences. And in present times, the equilibrium is clear: you can be disqualified for casting a dissenting vote, but there is no provision for discarding such a vote.

This is all to say nothing of the obvious chain of causation: the vote must be cast before you are disqualified. If you haven’t cast the vote, there is nothing to disqualify you for. You can be disqualified for voting, “in relation to” a vote of no-confidence, but the disqualification is for the act of voting, not for acts “in relation” to the vote. This means, of course, that you cannot be disqualified for standing in line to vote, or even announcing that you will vote against the prime minister. The text is clear, and only the legislature can alter it.

And because even disqualification by the party head is the first subject to confirmation by the Election Commission, and then the Supreme Court, all of this disqualification business is close to impossible during a vote of no-confidence. 

So neither a prime minister, nor a party head, nor the secretary of the National Assembly, nor a speaker can do anything to prevent the casting of the vote. The vote will be cast, and in due course, the member who cast it ought to be disqualified. That’s all there is to it.

And yet, suggestions abound to the effect that the speaker will, somehow, disrupt the casting of such votes. Ordinarily, this would be a rather uncharitable presumption. 

This is particularly so given the presumption of the neutrality of the speaker (which, in some countries, is why speakers wear robes). But when the speaker tweets his loyalty to the prime minister, against whom the vote is to be passed, it doesn’t hurt to double-check.

The roles of the speaker and the secretary of the National Assembly are both laid out in the National Assembly’s own rules. Nowhere is the speaker allowed to discard a vote. 

In fact, the speaker only receives the final count and not even the list of voters; it is the secretary who collects the lists and passes on the final count to the speaker. And the secretary, who does not even figure into the whole procedure for disqualification under 63A, obviously can’t disregard votes on this basis, either.

So, the options that the speaker is left with are the rather blatant suspension or withdrawal of members, which are only allowed for “disregarding the authority of the speaker” or “grossly disorderly” conduct. Such violations must, of course, also be connected to some violation of procedure or law.

Indeed, against all of these insinuations, there seems to be no law to come by. If the constitution is to be followed, then parliament shall decide whether the prime minister shall stay or not — as is its right — for better or worse.

But then again, rain may yet not fall on the charade. Reality is, after all, a circle. And we’ve seen it all happen before.

The writer is a lawyer. Email: salaar.khan@columbia.edu. Tweets at @brainmasalaar

Originally published in The News

Latest News

A 4.9-magnitude earthquake rattles Swat and surrounding areas.

Published

on

By

Late on Thursday night, an earthquake with a magnitude of 4.9 shook the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, as well as the surrounding districts of Swat.

Fearfully, people emerged from their houses and began reciting passages from the Holy Quran. The earthquake did not cause any documented casualties or damage to property in any area in Swat.

The earthquake’s epicenter, according to the National Seismic Monitoring Centre in Islamabad, was situated 71 kilometers deep in the border region between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan.

A 5.3-magnitude earthquake that struck earlier in the day rocked several Pakistani cities, including Islamabad, Peshawar, Mardan, Kohat, and the Swat valley. In addition, Lower Dir, Malakand, and Muzaffarabad all experienced earthquakes.

Continue Reading

Latest News

LHC requests report on dangers to PTI founder’s life

Published

on

By

The Punjab Advocate General’s report about threats to the life of PTI founder Imran Khan while he was incarcerated was requested by the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday.

Chief Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan of the LHC Court made the order while considering a request for the PTI founder’s security in jail made by President Afzal Azim of the Tehreek-e-Insaf Lawyers Forum.

Advocate Afzal requested that the court impose severe security measures on the PTI founder, arguing that the jail authorities had prohibited their meeting with him due to security concerns.

Advocate General Khalid Ishaq questioned the application’s maintainability as soon as the proceedings began. He stated that since it was the Punjab government’s responsibility to safeguard him, he would request a report on security concerns.

We cannot afford any more significant mishaps, Chief Justice Khan said. While Benazir Bhutto and Liaquat Ali Khan were slain, the founder of the PTI managed to elude a murderous attempt on his life.

He gave the counsel general instructions to find out how concerned the PTI founder is about security.

The plea can be heard in the Rawalpindi bench, not in the primary seat, the advocate general objected.

The hearing was postponed till April 3 by Chief Justice Khan, who instructed Attorney Afzal to present his petition on the following date.

Recall that on Thursday, Advocate Afzal petitioned the court to order the Punjab Home Department and the federal government to give the PTI founder greater security.

Continue Reading

Latest News

Eid package for deserving individuals approved by KP cabinet

Published

on

By

Details reveal that the cabinet also gave its approval for the purchase of cars and security gear for the police in the combined districts, totaling Rs 7.6 billion.

The decision was granted today in Peshawar at a cabinet meeting presided over by provincial chief minister Ali Amin Gandapur.

The Information Technology Board and a Special Technology Zone Authority’s Memorandum of Understanding for the creation of Pakistan Digital City were approved at the meeting.

The Pakhtunkhwa Energy Development Organization’s executive committee members and chief executive officer are appointed according to guidelines that the cabinet has agreed upon.

It is important to note that Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur previously declared that his government’s top goal was to restore peace and order to the province. He also stated that a detailed strategy had been established for this purpose.

He declared that the plan will soon be put into action because improving the state of law and order is essential to the development of any area.

He added that the protection of the police and other troops would also be a priority.
According to the chief minister, the government has brought back the “health card” feature.

He declared, “We have to improve the treatment facilities at public hospitals” and expressed hope that soon everyone will be able to receive treatment at public hospitals without needing to go to private ones.

Continue Reading

Trending