ISLAMABAD, Jan 8 : Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Monday quashed the lifetime disqualification for lawmakers, ruling that parliamentarians would be barred from holding office for five years, a landmark ruling that provided huge relief to top politicians, including former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan, ahead of the February 8 elections.
A 2018 judgment by a five-member bench of the apex court had declared that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) was for life, but changes made in the Elections Act 2017 on June 26, 2023, by a coalition government led by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) restricted it to a five-year term only.
A seven-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, on Monday, ruled that no person can be barred for a lifetime from running in elections if they are disqualified under Article 62 (1)(f).
The bench with a 6 to 1 split judgment abolished the lifetime disqualification and thus went against the judgment of its five-member bench which in 2018 had ruled in favor of lifetime disqualification.
The bench bench comprising Chief Justice Isa and Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Yahya Afridi, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Musarrat Hilali had reserved judgment on Friday after concluding the hearing of multiple petitions.
Justice Afridi differed from the other six judges and wrote a note of dissent in favour of life-long disqualification.
The verdict has determined once and for all the controversy around the period of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and the Elections Act 2017.
Sharif, the 74-year-old former prime minister and also a frontrunner for the fourth term in the February 8 general elections, was disqualified in the Panama Papers case in 2017. His rival 71-year-old Imran Khan, who was disqualified in the Toshakhana corruption case last year, also was hit by the same law.
The outcome of the hearing has decided the political future of both Sharif and Khan as well as many other politicians.
The court in its short order stated that the “interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution in imposing a lifetime disqualification upon a person through an implied declaration of a court of civil jurisdiction while adjudicating upon some civil rights and obligations of the parties is beyond the scope of the said Article and amounts to reading into the Constitution”.
It also said: “Article 62(1)(f) is not a self-executory provision as it does not by itself specify the court of law that is to make the declaration mentioned therein nor does it provide for any procedure for making, and any period for disqualification incurred by, such declaration.”
The court further ruled that until a law was enacted to make its provision executory, Article 62(1)(f) stood on a similar footing as Article 62(1)(d)(e)(g) – which talks about the qualification of a lawmaker – and served as a guideline for voters in exercising their right to vote.
“The view taken in Sami Ullah Baloch v Abdul Karim Nausherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405) treating the declaration made by a court of civil jurisdiction regarding breach of certain civil rights and obligations as a declaration mentioned in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and making such declaration to have a lifelong disqualifying effect amounts to reading into the Constitution and is therefore overruled,” it read.
The order also concurred with the amendments to the Elections Act that provide for five-year disqualification as a result of any judgment, order or decree of any court in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. “This provision is already in the field, and there remains no need to examine its validity and scope in the present case,” the top court ruled.
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader and former law minister Azam Nazir Tarar welcomed the judgment and said that it was long overdue. “The Supreme Court removed a discrepancy as the life-long ban was against the fundamental rights,” he said.
During the hearing spanning over several days, the court heard many lawyers to get various points of views on the duration of disqualification.
The remarks made by the chief justice and some other judges showed that they were not comfortable with the life-long ban on a convicted politician. However, it was not clear if the limit of disqualification should be imposed through a court order or an amendment to the Constitution.
Most of the arguments were in favour of nullifying the concept of the life-long ban and limiting it to a five-year term. However, the chief justice repeatedly said that he also wanted to hear arguments in support of life-long disqualification and asked lawyers to come forward.
The issue came into the focus of the Supreme Court towards the end of 2023 during the hearing of a petition of Badshah Khan Qaisarani, who was disqualified for producing a fake graduation degree.
During the hearing, the chief justice had remarked that the SC verdict on lifetime disqualification and the amendments made to the Elections Act, 2017 could not co-exist. He further stated that discrepancies in the apex court’s interpretation and the law could result in “confusion” in the upcoming general elections.
On Thursday, Chief Justice Isa said that disqualifying anyone for life from Parliament is “against Islam”.
“The Holy Quran mentions that the status of humans is very high,” he said, referring to a verse which explains that human beings are not bad but their deeds are. “Disqualifying anyone [for life] is against Islam.” (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
