Pakistan’s top court nullifies lifetime disqualification of lawmakers ahead of Feb.8 elections

Tariq Butt, Correspondent 

Former three-time prime minister and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supremo Nawaz Sharif and Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP) chief Jahangir Tareen became qualified to contest elections as the Supreme Court (SC), in a major verdict on Monday, ended the lifetime disqualification for lawmakers.

In a 6-1 majority judgment, the top court ruled that parliamentarians, disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, would be barred from holding office for five years under the law. Justice Yahya Afridi dissented.

The Supreme Court declared that no person can be barred for lifetime from running in elections if they are disqualified under Article 62 (1)(f), overruling its landmark judgment in the Samiullah Baloch case.

The apex court proceedings had been broadcast live on its website from where the TV channels had telecast live.

On Friday, a seven-member larger bench, headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) 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, had reserved the verdict in the case.

With elections fast approaching, the Supreme Court sought to determine once and for all the raging debate on whether aspirants disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) could contest polls in light of the amendments in the Elections Act 2017.

The law is the same provision under which Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen had been disqualified by the Supreme Court.

The legal conundrum arose in view of a 2018 apex court judgment in the Samiullah Baloch case, when the 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 Ijazul 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 Qaisarani, who was disqualified for producing a fake degree. His appeal is still pending before the Lahore High Court.

Earlier, Justice Qazi Faez Isa told Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Latif Khosa to refrain from making allegations against a constitutional body unless the claims could be backed up by proof.

He made the remarks as the court heard the PTI’s petition seeking initiation of contempt charges against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for alleged violation of its Dec.22 directives for a “level playing field” in the upcoming polls.

Justice Isa headed the bench, which also comprised Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali. The hearing was aired live on the apex court’s website.

The PTI has alleged that conspiracies are being hatched to exclude it from the Feb.8 general elections.

The hearing comes a day after the ECP informed the Supreme Court that 76 per cent of nomination papers filed by PTI candidates for the upcoming general elections had been accepted, negating the party’s allegations of a lack of level playing field in the run-up to polls.

At the outset of the hearing, Khosa and Advocate Shoaib Shaheen representing the PTI came to the rostrum while the Punjab advocate general was also present. The advocate general told the court that a report had been submitted by the chief secretary in connection with directives issued by the court.

Justice Isa then asked the PTI lawyers whether they had read the comprehensive report. “What’s wrong with it?” he asked.

“It is based on a total travesty of facts,” Khosa responded. However, Justice Mazhar pointed out that according to the report 1,195 nomination papers had been filed by the PTI.

Justice Isa pointed out that if the PTI disagreed with the report submitted, then it should have been submitted in writing.