ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Wednesday adjourned hearing of the case regarding determination of lawmakers disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) is for life or time specific till Thursday.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah heard the case filed by 17 petitioners seeking determination the duration of disqualification of member of the Parliament on violation of Article 62(1)(f). During the course of proceedings, Advocate Azam Nazeer Tarar counsel for former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif appeared before the bench and said that his client had asked him to appear in court on Wednesday evening so he could not prepare case.
Tarar pleaded the court to grant three days time to prepare his arguments in the case.
The court accepted lawyer's request and gave a week time for preparation of case.
The hearing of the case then continued and the CJP asked whether a parliamentarian who has been disqualified under Article 62 (1) (f) three months before the general election, would be eligible to contest.
He said that his client was de-notify in 2013 over rejection of his 2008 general election nomination papers.
Waseem Sajjad, counsel for Allah Dino stated that the present form of Article 62 is confusing and that there is a need to resolve the controversy around it.
He stated that Article 62 (1)(f) does not give punishment which is mentioned in Article 63 of the Constitution.
Justice Azmat Saeed remarked that if the court accept this interpretation then Article 62 will be redundant.
Munir A Malik, who has been appointed as amicus curiae in the case said that right to contest in elections is a fundamental right. Article 62 and 63 should be read in a manner wherein fundamental rights of any person should not be infringed, he added.
Malik also stated that time duration of disqualification is mentioned in Article 63 of the Constitution, which says that MPAs will be disqualified for five years.
He said that the Constitution is based on fundamental rights and lifelong disqualification is a violation of basic human rights.
He said that after the 18th Amendment, changes were made to the clauses under Article 63. Before the 18th amendment, past mistakes in conduct would result in disqualification for life, he added.
Justice Azmat Saeed observed that when the court disqualifies a person under Article 62, it is a declaration by the court, not a sentence. He asked what will the effect of Article 62(1)(f) be in such a case?
Munir Malik replied that no trial can be conducted on writ of quo warranto. The court would have will have to see for how long curbs to contest elections apply on disqualified individuals."
Asma Jehangir said that there are some people who are affected by article 62(1)(f); ordinary people who want to be part of this case as well. Upon this the chief justice remarked that they can jointly appoint a lawyer to represent them.
Advocate Tariq Mahmood counsel for Samina Khawar Hayat said that disqualification lasts for five years.
He said that the court had disqualified former President Pervez Musharraf for life in 2013.
Sikandar Bashir Mohmand counsel for Jehamgir Tareen in his arguments said that there was not mentioned disqualification for life in Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, Peoples Representation Act's Article 100 and National Accountability Bureau's Article 15.
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.