The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled Friday that members of the parliamentary party would not be disqualified under Article 63(A) if the majority of the members voted against their party leader.

In its 95-page detailed verdict on the presidential reference seeking interpretation of Article 63(A) of the Constitution, which is related to the status of defecting lawmakers, the apex court said that the disqualification of a person who voted against the instructions of a parliamentary party should be determined by Parliament through legislation.

Earlier on May 17, a five-member larger bench of the apex court, by a majority of three to two, issued a short judgment on the interpretation of Article 63(A). In its judgment, it declared that the vote of a member of the parliament who defected from the party will not be counted.

“If he votes against the party instructions, he will be declared ineligible. However, how long the period of ineligibility will be should be determined by the Parliament through legislation,” it had said.

President Arif Alvi had sent the reference to the Supreme Court for the interpretation of Article 63(A). As a result of the court decision, not only those 20 PTI members of the Punjab Assembly who voted for Hamza Shehbaz were disqualified, but Hamza Shehbaz’s chief ministership also ended.

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail issued the detailed verdict.

Justice Akhtar authored the majority opinion in the 95-page detailed judgment.

In its detailed verdict, the Supreme court clarified that since Article 63(1)(p) conferred the necessary competence on Parliament, “on reflection it is our view that the matter is best left to the legislature”.

The apex court ruled that the votes of dissident members of the parliament (MPs), cast against their parliamentary party’s directives, could not be counted.

The apex court said that in the constitution, the parliamentary party was mentioned for the party instructions, not the party leader, the members of parliament have full freedom of expression and the freedom of expression could not be used while voting in the light of Article 63(A).