WUKALA MAHAZ BARAI TAHAFAZ DASTOOR and anothers vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of constitutional challenge regarding the validity of Article 63A of the Constitution of Pakistan. The core legal question addressed was whether Article 63A of the Constitution and its specific provisions concerning floor crossing and party discipline are intra vires or violative of fundamental rights. By a majority of 6 to 1, the Court held that Article 63A of the Constitution is intra vires, subject to specific clarifications by a 4 to 2 majority regarding its construction in conjunction with paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Explanation to clause (1) and the preservation of freedom of speech within the House under Articles 19 and 66. The minority view considered certain provisions violative of fundamental rights and void. The key principle laid down is that disqualification for a breach of party discipline under Article 63A must relate specifically to matters covered in the constitutional explanation, occur within the House, and be construed so as to preserve the constitutional right of freedom of speech subject to reasonable restrictions.
- Whether Article 63A of the Constitution of Pakistan is intra vires?
- Does disqualification for breach of party discipline under Article 63A require the breach to occur within the House?
- How does Article 63A interact with the freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution?
- Article 19, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 63A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 66, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. OF THE COURT ' By majority of 6 to 1 it is held that Article 63A of the Constitution is intra vires but by 4 to 2 subject to the following clarifications:
(i) That paragraph (a) to be read in conjunction with paragraphs (b) and (c) to Explanation to clause (1) of Article 63A of the Constitution. It must, therefore, follow as a corollary that a member of a House can be disqualified for a breach of party discipline in terms of above paragraph (a) when the alleged breach relates to the matters covered by aforesaid paragraphs (b) and (c) to the above Explanation to clause (1) of the aforementioned Article and that the breach complained of occurred within the House.
(ii) That the above paragraph (a) to Explanation to clause (1) of Article 63A is to be construed in such a way that it should preserve the right of freedom of speech of a member in the House subject to reasonable restrictions as are envisaged in Article 66 read with Article 19 of the Constitution.
2. ' Whereas by minority view paragraph (a) in the Explanation to clause (1) of Article 63A and clause
(6) in the said Article of the Constitution are violative of the fundamental rights and are to be treated as void ad unenforceable.