Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Nasirul Mulk has decided to constitute a seven-judge larger bench to hear pleas, seeking disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
A Supreme Court official confirmed that a larger bench has been constituted to hear matter of the PM’s disqualification. “Although date for hearing the case is not yet fixed but it is expected that it [the case] will be listed in the next ten days,” he said.
The larger bench will adjudicate questions raised by a three-judge bench – headed by Justice Jawwad S Khawaja – while hearing an appeal filed by Insaf Lawyers Forum’s Senior Vice President Gohar Nawaz Sindhu.
The petitioner contended that the prime minister had lied on the floor of the house, disgraced the army and therefore should be disqualified. Two other similar petitions were also filed in the SC.
The SC bench – in its order issued on November 10 – had ordered the SC’s office to place the case file before the CJP and suggested that a larger bench might be formed “if the CJP considers it appropriate”.
The bench had also suggested to appoint Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) counsel Hamid Khan, Pakistan Peoples Party’s (PPP) Senator Raza Rabbani and senior counsel Khawaja Haris as amicus curiae (friends of the court) to assist the court.
The SC bench had noted that the case raised important constitutional questions “involving continuity and health of country’s system of elections, governance and adherence to the will of the people.”
The bench had put emphasis on laying down a law suggesting what should be the minimum threshold for attracting Articles 62(1 f) and 63(1 g) of the Constitution requiring a conviction by a court against a member of parliament.
It is important to determine, the bench had said, which court is competent to convict a parliamentarian besides what should be the standard of proof required for making such conviction.
The court had also suggested for the consideration of the larger bench that the constitutional provisions of eligibility for elected office requiring an elected person to be ‘honest’ and ‘ameen’ have to be given meaning because these terms have to be interpreted as they constitute a substantive part of the Constitution.
“The larger bench will also consider whether Article 66 (privileges of members) provides an absolute or a qualified privilege to parliamentarian for statements made on the floor of the two houses of parliament and provincial assemblies and also whether the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 override Article 66,” the order said.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 27th, 2014.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
SC may acquire the written statement from ISPR to clarify COAS statement.
Having contradictory articles don't help.
You have the right to say whatever you want even if it's a lie in Parliament. Whereas you're not allowed to lie by another article.
However, the SC doesn't have proof our Premier lied as his version may be true. Unless PTI can produce COAS Sharif. I think they lack evidence for a disqualification.