[ad_1]
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, which talk about the disqualification of lawmakers.
“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.
At one point, Justice Shah pointed out a benefit that could be drawn from the Samiullah case judgment was that the nature of the declaration was obvious while the duration of the disqualification remains unclear.
For his part, Makhdoom said: “[…] I could not find a case for any common law jurisdiction where as a result of civil liability and a decree of a civil court, a citizen is denied the right to exercise, or the protection of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution for the rest of his life.”
He further put forward questions regarding which court was capable of granting a declaration under the civil laws of the country that a person is honest and truthful. “There is no civil court in this country which can grant that,” he contended, adding that judges usually grant declarations on a legal title or legal character.
Here, Justice Mandokhail asked if a civil court could issue a declaration of disqualification. The lawyer replied in the negative.
Meanwhile, Justice Shah asked: “Can legislation put a timeframe on this declaration? Could that be possible? Could legislation say that this declaration will continue forever, but for the purposes of elections will have a timeframe?”
In his response, Makhdoom said Article 62(1)(f) does not say that this is a declaration of the civil court. He added that the Constitution keeps qualification and disqualification separate.
“Article 62 applies pre-election, post-election or any time?” Justice Mazhad inquired, to which the lawyer replied Article 63 applied at any time while Article 62 applied only at the time of elections.
Here, the CJP interjected that the court had “bummed down in restricting ourselves to reading just a particular provision of the Constitution and we seem to have forgotten the Constitution as a whole”.
“What is the Constitution all about? What does it do? What are the fundamental rights?” the top judge asked, lamenting that the constitutional history of Pakistan was being disregarded.
“We are disregarding the fact why these amendments were brought into the Constitution, we are disregarding the fact that original Constitution has a greater sanctity than amendments brought unless there are such amendments which enable to serve the people better,” Justice Isa remarked.
He recalled that there was “successive encroachment” made into the Constitution throughout history. “Disregard how it came into the Constitution, now you are stuck with the language of the Constitution,” the apex court judge said, stressing that he could not forget the history of Pakistan.
“We had given public notice in newspapers but not a single political party came before us that this is a good interpretation of the Constitution,” CJP Isa noted. He highlighted that there must be some logic and reasoning behind lifetime disqualification, saying that a person who “destroyed Pakistan” was allowed to contest elections but others were disqualified for life just for some errors in the nomination papers.
“Have we lost all logic and sensibilities?” the chief justice asked. “Will you concede that parliamentarians in Pakistan are the best in the world? Does any other country have this test for parliamentarians? So if we have this test […] that means this is not even a workable law. This is just words on a piece of paper which I can use for my personal projects.”
For his part, Makhdoom referred to a US SC judgment where it had rejected new qualifications for lawmakers sought by Congress. Coming to lifetime disqualification, he said: “The Parliament in the 18th Amendment did not mention that the declaration will remain forever.”
An election tribunal, the lawyer continued, had four declarations which included dismissing a petition and even declaring the election void as a whole. “For offences under the Elections Act, the session judge tries them,” he explained, adding that the Pakistan Penal Code also had a chapter on election offences and where punishments were prescribed.
“When your lordship looks at corrupt and illegal practices, the maximum punishment of illegal practices does not exceed two years. Only for the corrupt practice, the [punishment] can go beyond two years,” he explained, submitting that the “business of civil law declaration” had been introduced by the apex court which stripped the fundamental rights of an individual forever.
At one point during the hearing, the CJP reiterated that everything should be logical. “We are not philosophers. This document is not for lawyers, it is for the people of Pakistan. Please explain to the people of Pakistan why a National Accountability Bureau convict will get a 10-year disqualification.”
“The Constitution is for the people of Pakistan. Don’t make it difficult,” the top judge stressed.
More to follow
[ad_2]
Source link
