The SCBA, in its reply submitted to the apex court, stated that every vote that is cast has to be counted as per Article 95 and every lawmaker is independent in choosing which side to vote for.

It declared that a member of parliament cast their votes on no-confidence motion in their individual capacity and as per Article 95 of the constitution vote is not the right of any political party.

The reply further said that no member of the National Assembly can be barred from voting under Article 63-A, as the public runs the government through their elected representatives, adding that there is no disqualification under Article 63-A for voting against party direction.

Presidential Reference Matter: JUI-F files reply in SC

On the other hand, JUI-F in its reply said that no party elections were held in the ruling PTI. It said that the party was being run by 'selected' individuals. Such a party cannot provide guidance on voting under Article 63-A, it continued.

It further stated that speaker of the house cannot be given the authority to reject the vote of members of the parliament.

Presidential Reference: PML-N submits reply in Supreme Court

Meanwhile, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) in its response termed the presidential reference filed for interpretation of Article 63A as an attempt to waste the valuable time of the apex court saying that the Articles 63-A and Article 95 of the Constitution are clear and that every member has the right to vote.

It further stated that the apex court only has the authority to interpret the Constitution, not the constitutional amendments.

Presidential Reference: PPP also submitted reply in Supreme Court

Pakistan People's Party (PPP) in its reply submitted to the supreme court said that the presidential reference does not fall under the purview of Article 186, voting on the presidential reference would affect the right of appeal, adding that 63(A) could not be applied before the vote of a member of the National Assembly.