In May 2022, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court led by the then-Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial ruled that any vote cast by a legislator, that was contrary to the policy or directives of his or her party, would not be counted in a parliamentary vote. When that decision came, a certain section of Pakistanis warmly welcomed it and showered much praise on the Supreme Court, especially the three members of the five-member bench who had given the verdict. They were called honest and upright judges and were praised (almost universally) by the media at that time, which was heavily skewed in favour of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and former prime minister, Imran Khan.
When that verdict was delivered, and while it was praised by some people as among the best verdicts the august court had ever delivered in its existence, it went quite contrary to the norms and practices of the more developed democracies in the world. Take the case of both the UK and the US, where a member of the House of Commons (in the UK) or of the House of Representatives (Congress in the US) is free to vote according to the way he or she sees fit and is not bound by the party line - and there is certainly no provision that would nullify such a vote if it was against the directive of the policy or went against its stance.
We should look at the matter more closely. If the vote of a member of the National Assembly or the Senate is not to be counted if it is against their respective party, then it could be argued that why should a political party have any individual legislators at all? This is to say that if a party wins X number of seats, then whenever there’s a vote it would be safe to just assume that all X members will vote in line with the party’s stance or policy - and that there’s no need for consultation or allowance for any kind of internal disagreement or dissent. And hence, how is that any different from a one-man rule or a dictatorship within a party - where whatever the party chief says has to be complied with by all and sundry, and therefore there should be no need really for any individual voting by party members on parliamentary votes - or the will of the public they are supposed to represent.
From 2022, we now move now to October 2024.
If the insinuation is that by nature legislators are prone to being tempted for personal gain and riches, then why have a parliament at all - since having one will only provide avenues for these corrupt legislators to enrich themselves
A five-member later bench - this time it was a unanimous verdict - ruled that the votes of legislators should be counted even if they had voted against their party's directions. The bench, led by the incumbent Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, reversed the decision of the same court from 2022 but by a different bench and a different Chief Justice. However, October 3's judgment restored the agency that members of Parliament have in parliamentary democracies, and which permits them to vote, if they see fit, against the directives of their party if need be.
During the October 3 hearing of the top court, the lawyer for the PTI praised the 2022 ruling because it prevented otherwise corrupt legislators from personal gains at the expense of their party's unity and policies. However, to this one could argue that if the insinuation is that by nature legislators are prone to being tempted for personal gain and riches, then why have a parliament at all - since having one will only provide avenues for these corrupt legislators to enrich themselves.
Of course, that was not a good argument and one would suspect that the PTI knows that very well.
It also knows very well that the judgment in 2022, which threw longstanding democratic traditions out of the window, provided Imran Khan and his party a chance to get back into power. And therefore it made sense for the party to welcome it and praise it.
And now the course has been corrected and a verdict that should never have been handed down has been undone.
And Pakistan's democracy is all the better for it.