ISLAMABAD: As the federation and all the provinces are unanimous that there should be no lifelong disqualification for contesting elections, therefore, the Supreme Court sought senior lawyers’ assistance to canvass contrary views.
A seven-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, and comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice AminudDin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Justice Musarrat Hilali, on Tuesday, heard various petitions regarding discrepancy between the Supreme Court’s judgment on lifetime disqualification under Article 62(1) (f) of the constitution and the amendment made in Election Act, 2017. The proceeding was live broadcast on the Supreme Court’s website.
The chief justice asked Makhdoom Ali Khan, who represented Jehangir Tareen, Patron-in-Chief Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP), to provide the list of the petitioners and the respondents in this case.
ECP ‘discrepancies’: Lawyers’ bodies urge SC to take notice
He said there are many individuals who have filed the petitions, but an impression has been created in social media that a seven-member bench was hearing the case for any specific party/ politician. The CJP said they wanted to decide the case by January 11.
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, advocate generals of all the provinces and Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT), and the counsels of the respondents and the applicants support the AGP’s contention that there should not be a lifetime disqualification of lawmakers.
Therefore, the chief justice said: “We want to hear better contrary articulate views on lifelong disqualification, with the level of seriousness.”
Makhdoom informed that Articles 62 and 63 were inserted in the constitution through Presidential Order in 1985, during the regime of General Ziaul Haq, and validated by the Parliament.
“We should not always criticise the Parliament, but we have to see that sometimes they have to operate in odd times,” said the chief justice, adding the validation was a bitter pill for the Parliament, which it swallowed to put the country back to democracy.
He said the General had told the Parliament if you would not do this (validate) then he would continue as Chief Martial Law Administrator.
The chief justice remarked that the person who had violated and destroyed the constitution, had put conditions for the eligibility of the parliamentarians in the constitution.
The Court noted that he (Ziaul Haq) inserted the words good character, Islamic teaching, and non-profligate, righteous in Article 62 and 63. The CJP inquired from Makhdoom that he (Gen Zia) was not non-profligate. Makhdoom replied; “These are the matters of Divine judgment.”
Justice Mansoor questioned why the Parliament in the 18th Amendment did not stamp out these Articles (62 and 63) from the constitution?
The attorney general informed that in the 18th Amendment the words “declaration by Court of law” were inserted in Article 62(1)(f) to avoid confusion at the end of the returning officers (ROs), as before that the RO were disqualifying candidates under Article 62(1)(f).
The court noted that another military dictator introduced BA condition for contesting elections. The chief justice remarked that had Quaid-i-Azam contested elections he would have been disqualified due to BA condition.
Makhdoom argued that the SC judgment in Samiullah Baloch is not in accord with the constitution. It is not a good judgment, and since there is a lacuna in it, therefore, a five-year disqualification period was provided through an amendment in Section 232 of the Election Act, 2017.
However, Justice Mansoor questioned how the subordinate legislation can control the constitutional provisions. He said in murder, working against the integrity of Pakistan, and terrorism cases, the disqualification period is five years, but if someone tells lies in his nomination paper then the sentence is that he cannot contest election for whole life.
Makhdoom informed that the author of the SC judgment in Samiullah case is the author of judgment delivered in the case of Faisal Vawda, adding the judge rendered a different opinion in Vawda’s case and disqualified him for one term for submitting a false affidavit in a dual nationality case. The case is adjourned until January 4.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024