Party head vs parliamentary head: A look at SC’s stance on party head role

KARACHI: As debate over Friday’s Punjab Assembly proceedings turned to the constitution and the letter of the law, lawyer Reema Omer, legal adviser for the International Commission of Jurists, took to Twitter to write a detailed thread on the question of whose prerogative it is to direct party members: the party head, the parliamentary party or the leader of the parliamentary party.

In her Twitter thread, Reema Omer writes: “It is surprising to see so many lawyers interpreting directions of a ‘parliamentary party’ in Article 63A as directions of the ‘leader of the parliamentary party’ as opposed to party head. The SC in a number of judgments has held otherwise:

“See, for example, PLD 2018 SC 97 (Justice Bandial was a member of the bench), where the SC refused to uphold a declaration of defection because there was no “specific direction of the party head” asking members to abstain. Note: [The] court expressly uses “direction of party head”. [The2018 judgment had said: “Thus it is held that in the absence of specific direction of the party head, with regard to abstaining from casting the vote, the appellants have not defected the party, as such, the impugned order dated 6/4/2017 is not sustainable. Resultantly, declaration of their defection...is declared void”.]

Reema goes on to cite “PLD 2018 SC 366, where SC held Nawaz Sharif was barred from holding the position of party head. [The] SC attached great significance to the ‘party head’, and said the party head performs various key functions including ‘being a leader of the parliamentary party’.” [At the time, the SC had held that: “The words party head has been defined in Article 63A of the constitution to mean any person by whatever name called, declared as such by the party. he party head typically performs various key functions, including but not limited to forming the central working committee, appointing a central executive committee, heading the central parliamentary board of the party, being a leader of the the parliamentary party and other pivotal functions”.]

In the same judgment (PLD 2018 SC 366), writes Reema, the “SC says the party head enjoys a ‘decisive role’ within the party, including through the parliamentary party which he ‘directly controls and superintends. Note: the bench comprised of [sic] J Saqib Nisar, J Bandial and J Ijaz ul Ahsan.”

Reema also cites the SC’s short order of May 2022, interpreting Article 63A, and says that the SC’s “reasoning is based on the will of ‘political parties’ prevailing over individuals. The court also warns against destabilising ‘political parties’ -- and democracy -- through defection.”

Per Reema Omer then: “According to [the] SC, therefore, votes of MPAs/MNAs are the sacred trust of the political party. It would be inconsistent with [the] SC’s own reasoning to give precedence to [the] ‘leader of parliamentary party’ over party head for purposes of deciding the party line in such key issues.” She concludes that: “[Article] 63A itself is ambiguous, and now, of course, [the] SC will decide how directions of [a] ‘parliamentary party’ should be interpreted. However, let’s not forget [the] SC created this mess in the first place by rewriting the constitution and intervening in what was an entirely political matter.”