5-year bar or lifetime ban: SC resumes hearing disqualification case
With the general elections fast approaching, the Supreme Court on Friday resumed hearing a set of petitions seeking to determine whether the disqualification period for a lawmaker was for five years or a lifetime.
A seven-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, is hearing the case.
The proceedings are being broadcast live on the apex court’s website.
The SC seeks to determine once and for all the raging debate on whether aspirants disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution could contest polls in light of the amendments in the Elections Act 2017.
The law, which sets the precondition for a member of parliament to be “sadiq and ameen” (honest and righteous), is the same provision under which former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and Istehkam-i-Pakistan Party Chairman Jahangir Tareen were disqualified.
The legal conundrum arose in view of a 2018 SC judgment in the Samiullah Baloch case, when the apex court ruled that disqualification handed down under Article 62(1)(f) was supposed to be “permanent”. The verdict was issued by former chief justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, ex-CJP Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ahsan and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah.
However, in June 2023, an amendment was brought in the Elections Act 2017, specifying that the period of the electoral disqualification will be for five years, not for life.
The dilemma cropped up in the top court last month during an electoral disqualification dispute moved by Sardar Mir Badshah Khan Qaisarani, who was disqualified for producing a fake degree. His appeal is still pending before the Lahore High Court.
At the previous hearing, Justice Isa had regretted that constitutional amendments dealing with the disqualification of lawmakers under Article 62(1)(f) were thrust upon parliament under peculiar circumstances, without any debate.
“I have repeatedly emphasised that there is a need to understand the broader picture and the way such amendments in the Constitution were brought in,” the CJP had observed, adding these things were introduced during the martial law by dictators, when the will of one individual prevailed, merely because of the fear that otherwise the individual may perpetuate his rule for another 25 years. “Thus, these provisions were made fait accompli,” he had said.
The hearing
As the proceedings commenced today, the bench summoned Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan, the lawyer of Jahangir Khan Tareen, to come to the rostrum.
The lawyer stated that the Samiullah Baloch case made a “complete disconnect” between Article 62 and Article 63 of the Constitution. “It observes that these are two different sets and two different considerations prevail, therefore the language of Article 63 would not be allowed to inform the language of Article 62 of the Constitution,” he contended.
Makhdoom maintained that the SC, in the said case, was not talking about a declaration made under the penal laws of the country.
More to follow