PESHAWAR, Feb 21: The Peshawar High Court on Tuesday asked the federal and provincial governments to file written comments in reply to a writ petition filed by former MNA Marvi Memon, challenging the amendment made to the “defection clause” of the Constitution through the Constitution (18th Amendment) Act.

A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice Dost Mohammad Khan and Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth fixed March 27 for next hearing, directing deputy attorney general Mohammad Iqbal Mohmand and additional advocate general Naveed Akhter to file comments before that date.

In the petition the former MNA has challenged Article 63 A (1) (b) of the Constitution, which defines disqualification of a parliamentarian when they vote or abstain from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party on election of prime minister or chief minister; on a vote of confidence or no-confidence; on a Money Bill or a Constitutional Bill.

She contended that this Article of the Constitution in effect breached the guaranteed fundamental rights and was violation of Article 4, 14, 17, 19, 25, 55, 63 (2), 66, 95 and 127 of the Constitution.

Ms Memon appeared along with her counsel Umer Farooq Adam and stated that through the amendment a dictatorship of party head had been imposed.  She said that previously the words “constitutional bill” were not mentioned in the said section, but now those were incorporated following which no lawmaker could freely participate in the debate regarding any constitutional amendment.

Ms Memon stated that the said provision was now counter-productive for democratic legislation because it insisted on “any direction issued by the parliamentary party” as against the more democratic concept of party policy, determined by the entire party. She stated that the omission of a party disciplinary committee from the said article was a regression from earlier legislation on the subject.

Mr Akhter pointed out that several provisions of the 18th Amendment Act were challenged before the Supreme Court and the matter had still been pending, and as such the high court could not proceed with the matter.

During proceedings, the chief justice observed that the level of discipline should not encroach upon fundamental rights of lawmakers.

“We are also of the view that horse-trading should be ended and should not be used as a tool to suppress freedom of expression of members in right things,” he observed.

Ms Memon said that nowhere in the world this right of freedom of expression of lawmakers had been taken away.