SC word on ineligibility period likely before polls

Larger bench to be constituted soon to determine whether disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) is perpetual

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court is likely to take up the interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution to determine whether disqualification of lawmakers under the law is for life.

Sources revealed to The Express Tribune that a larger bench will be constituted soon to take up the cases of several parliamentarians to determine whether their disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) is perpetual.

The sources said the top court was expected to decide the question before the general elections due in the coming year. An official said preparation was being made to fix all related matters for hearing soon. He said a number of constitutional questions were involved in these election cases.



Legal experts believe that the proceedings on the matter will be significant as it will decide the fate of several parliamentarians, including PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif and PTI leader Jahangir Tareen, who have been disqualified under the said article.

Recently, both Sharif and Tareen were disqualified under the same constitutional provision on the charges of concealing their assets in nomination papers as election candidates. Earlier, the SC had disqualified parliamentarians for possessing fake graduation degrees and dual nationality.

Lawyers believe these parliamentarians may get relief if the SC declares that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) is time-specific. Presently, former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry’s judgments are in force, holding that disqualification under the article is for life. However, some earlier verdicts did not envisage permanent disqualification.

Once during the hearing of these cases, former CJ Anwar Zaheer Jamali had wondered how anyone could be disqualified from participating in elections forever on the basis of Articles 62 and 63, saying people could reform themselves to be qualified under the provisions at some point of time.

A couple of months ago, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, while hearing a case related to a local representative of Multan Cantonment Board, also granted leave to determine the same question. Sardar Muhammad Aslam was a counsel in that case.

Kamran Murtaza, the counsel for three disqualified parliamentarians, said a larger bench headed by former chief justice Jamali had already conducted a couple of hearings regarding the matter. However, after Justice Jamali’s retirement, the matter was not taken up.

Murtaza said dozens of cases had been clubbed to decide this legal question. “I personally feel that the SC should allow parliamentarians disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution to contest the elections and let the people decide about their future,” he added.

Pakistan Bar Council member Azam Nazeer Tarar also said it was the best time for the top court to decide this question once and for all.

He claimed that the court had issued varying judgments on the disqualification of parliamentarians on the same grounds. On concealing assets, the court in the Iftikhar Cheema case had only ordered de-seating. Cheema contested by-election and became a member of the National Assembly again. However, in a separate case, the SC disqualified Rae Hassan Nawaz under Article 62(1)(f) which was apparently a lifelong ineligibility, he added.



Tarar said the situation with respect to cases of fake degrees was similar. The court allowed Jamshaid Dasti to contest election again but disqualified Rizwan Gill, Samina Khawar Hayat and Amir Yar under Article 62(1)(f).

He said the case of Haji Nasir Iqbal was also interesting as he was disqualified as parliamentarian under Article 62 in 2010 but was recently allowed to contest election for the post of mayor in Gujrat because provisions of Articles 62 and 63 were not applicable to local bodies’ representatives in Punjab.

Tarar also mentioned issues on the judgments related to Sharif, Tareen and PTI chief Imran Khan.

Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution states, “A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and Ameen.”

A person convicted in a criminal case would be barred for five years after imprisonment; one convicted under the NAB Ordinance would be disqualified for 10 years after his release; and in a contempt case, an individual would be disqualified for five years.

However, it is interesting to mention that a person giving a false statement before the court or concealing his assets’ details in nomination papers would be disqualified for the rest of his life.

However, Sharif’s counsel Khawaja Haris did not argue that point before a larger bench during the hearing of the review petition filed by the former PM over his disqualification.