THE whole nation is consumed with the daily dose of discussions related to Article 63-A of the Constitution. The current ruling coalition is crying hoarse in seeking to overturn the earlier Supreme Court (SC) judgement according to which legis-lators casting vote against party line will lose their seats and their vote will not be counted. The government claims that in passing the earlier judgement, the SC had excee-ded its jurisdiction, and actually rewrote the Constitution by including a provision of disallowance of vote in addition to disqualification. I am not really shocked at how vociferously some senior lawyers are making such a claim. Their motive is to cause defections amongst those who are bound by party discipline. The spirit of Article 63-A is meant to prevent floor crossing, providing stability to the government of the day in parliament. History suggests there are always people of questionable conscience in our assemblies who are ready to give up their seat only to regain it in a by-election or get some lucrative assignment in return. I have been a student of comparative constitutions. I say with all my knowledge that the intent of the framers is more important than perceived deficiencies in the text. I request the parliamentarians to avoid mutilating the Constitution.