Govt to challenge Elections Act judgement
SC registrar approves request for two-week extension to file review plea
PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
In an unprecedented move, the federal government has challenged the Supreme Court’s judgment on The Elections Act, which disqualified former prime minister Nawaz Sharif as the head of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
As the 30-day deadline lapsed on Thursday, neither the PML-N nor Nawaz Sharif has challenged the SC’s February 21 verdict.
However, in the last hearing, the federal government filed a review petition through Additional Attorney General Waqar Rana, requesting the SC to set aside its February 21 judgment.
The review has been filed by the cabinet and law ministries.
Likewise, the federal government on Thursday requested the SC registrar’s office to grant it two weeks time to file a modified review petition. The registrar’s office has accepted the government's plea and granted two weeks time.
A senior law officer informed The Express Tribune that the government has raised an objection over the SC’s declaration that ‘the provisions of Sections 203 and 232 of the Election Act, 2017 are liable to be read, construed and interpreted subject to the provisions of Articles 62, 63 and 63-A of the Constitution’
He admits that it would have been much better if the review petition was filed by the PML-N or Nawaz Sharif.
Initially, even the government's legal team was divided over the filing of a review petition on behalf of the federal government. One section of the legal team believes that the SC may raise questions over the legal standing of the federal government to file this review petition.
LHC judgment on Dar challenged in SC
Likewise, Pakistan Tehreek-i- Insaf (PTI) lawyer Chaudhry Faisal Hussain wondered that how the federal government could approach the SC to seek relief for an individual, who is not 'sadiq and ameen' in view of the Panama Papers verdict.
Meanwhile, a senior PML-N lawyer informed The Express Tribune that though the party’s counsel Salman Akram Raja advised challenging the SC’s judgment, one section of the ruling party has shown complete mistrust over the bench which heard petitions against The Election Act 2017.
“The superior judiciary should itself consider why a major political force (PML-N) lacks trust in the top court of the country”, he further stated.
The PML-N lawyer believes that at this time, it is unlikely that the PML-N will get relief in any matter. However, he said, this is a classic case for review as the SC deviated from its own principles set in Benazir Bhutto's case in 1988. The lawyer also raised questions over the SC's detailed judgment in the case, wherein it gave a nexus between Islamic morality and political party head.
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan Tehreek-i- Insaf (PTI), and others had approached the Supreme Court to seek the disqualification of Sharif as party chief after the Panama verdict of July 28, 2017, wherein he was declared ineligible to hold public office under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Nullifying disqualification: AML challenges Election Act, 2017 in apex court
Interestingly, these political parties failed to evolve a strategy within parliament to stop Sharif from becoming party head after his disqualification. Later, they challenged The Elections Act in the apex court.
The bench started hearing the Election Act case on January 1. Dr Farogh Nasim, Sardar Latif Khosa, Babar Awan and others argued on behalf of the petitioners, while Salman Akram Raja contested the case for the PML-N. Additional Attorney General Waqar Rana also argued the case. Though Sharif was also party to the case, he did not engage any counsel to represent him in the matter.
The Supreme Court has held that that morality is part and parcel of the Islamic ideology of Pakistan and is included in the expression, “integrity of Pakistan”
“To hold that a person who is disqualified to be king can nevertheless be given a free hand to operate as a kingmaker, who may, despite lacking qualification and without going through the electoral process, act as a puppet master pull the strings and exercise political power vicariously, would amount to making a complete mockery of the Constitution, the legislative process, the law, the government, and the values that we hold so dear and have consciously worked for, defended and incorporated in the Constitution. It is a cardinal principle of law and justice that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly”, says the 51-page verdict, authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar. The other two members of the bench were Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
The order says that an elected Parliament, adorned with the chosen representatives of the people on one hand and rule of law on the other, are the foundations of democracy under the Constitution.
“Articles 62, 63 and 63-A of the Constitution create an integrated framework for ensuring that the business of Parliament is conducted by persons of probity, integrity and high moral character. These conditions are enforced by Articles and 63 of the Constitution by prescribing qualifications and disqualifications for membership of Parliament”
The order further says that all laws pertaining to election to Parliament and to participation in parliamentary proceedings are to be read subject to such constitutional provisions in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution.
The court also held that under Article 63-A of the Constitution, the position of party head in a political party that has representation in Parliament has a central role in the performance of duties by members of the Parliament. For rendering such a role, a party head must possess the qualifications and be free of the disqualifications contemplated in Articles and 63.
In an unprecedented move, the federal government has challenged the Supreme Court’s judgment on The Elections Act, which disqualified former prime minister Nawaz Sharif as the head of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
As the 30-day deadline lapsed on Thursday, neither the PML-N nor Nawaz Sharif has challenged the SC’s February 21 verdict.
However, in the last hearing, the federal government filed a review petition through Additional Attorney General Waqar Rana, requesting the SC to set aside its February 21 judgment.
The review has been filed by the cabinet and law ministries.
Likewise, the federal government on Thursday requested the SC registrar’s office to grant it two weeks time to file a modified review petition. The registrar’s office has accepted the government's plea and granted two weeks time.
A senior law officer informed The Express Tribune that the government has raised an objection over the SC’s declaration that ‘the provisions of Sections 203 and 232 of the Election Act, 2017 are liable to be read, construed and interpreted subject to the provisions of Articles 62, 63 and 63-A of the Constitution’
He admits that it would have been much better if the review petition was filed by the PML-N or Nawaz Sharif.
Initially, even the government's legal team was divided over the filing of a review petition on behalf of the federal government. One section of the legal team believes that the SC may raise questions over the legal standing of the federal government to file this review petition.
LHC judgment on Dar challenged in SC
Likewise, Pakistan Tehreek-i- Insaf (PTI) lawyer Chaudhry Faisal Hussain wondered that how the federal government could approach the SC to seek relief for an individual, who is not 'sadiq and ameen' in view of the Panama Papers verdict.
Meanwhile, a senior PML-N lawyer informed The Express Tribune that though the party’s counsel Salman Akram Raja advised challenging the SC’s judgment, one section of the ruling party has shown complete mistrust over the bench which heard petitions against The Election Act 2017.
“The superior judiciary should itself consider why a major political force (PML-N) lacks trust in the top court of the country”, he further stated.
The PML-N lawyer believes that at this time, it is unlikely that the PML-N will get relief in any matter. However, he said, this is a classic case for review as the SC deviated from its own principles set in Benazir Bhutto's case in 1988. The lawyer also raised questions over the SC's detailed judgment in the case, wherein it gave a nexus between Islamic morality and political party head.
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan Tehreek-i- Insaf (PTI), and others had approached the Supreme Court to seek the disqualification of Sharif as party chief after the Panama verdict of July 28, 2017, wherein he was declared ineligible to hold public office under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Nullifying disqualification: AML challenges Election Act, 2017 in apex court
Interestingly, these political parties failed to evolve a strategy within parliament to stop Sharif from becoming party head after his disqualification. Later, they challenged The Elections Act in the apex court.
The bench started hearing the Election Act case on January 1. Dr Farogh Nasim, Sardar Latif Khosa, Babar Awan and others argued on behalf of the petitioners, while Salman Akram Raja contested the case for the PML-N. Additional Attorney General Waqar Rana also argued the case. Though Sharif was also party to the case, he did not engage any counsel to represent him in the matter.
The Supreme Court has held that that morality is part and parcel of the Islamic ideology of Pakistan and is included in the expression, “integrity of Pakistan”
“To hold that a person who is disqualified to be king can nevertheless be given a free hand to operate as a kingmaker, who may, despite lacking qualification and without going through the electoral process, act as a puppet master pull the strings and exercise political power vicariously, would amount to making a complete mockery of the Constitution, the legislative process, the law, the government, and the values that we hold so dear and have consciously worked for, defended and incorporated in the Constitution. It is a cardinal principle of law and justice that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly”, says the 51-page verdict, authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar. The other two members of the bench were Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
The order says that an elected Parliament, adorned with the chosen representatives of the people on one hand and rule of law on the other, are the foundations of democracy under the Constitution.
“Articles 62, 63 and 63-A of the Constitution create an integrated framework for ensuring that the business of Parliament is conducted by persons of probity, integrity and high moral character. These conditions are enforced by Articles and 63 of the Constitution by prescribing qualifications and disqualifications for membership of Parliament”
The order further says that all laws pertaining to election to Parliament and to participation in parliamentary proceedings are to be read subject to such constitutional provisions in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution.
The court also held that under Article 63-A of the Constitution, the position of party head in a political party that has representation in Parliament has a central role in the performance of duties by members of the Parliament. For rendering such a role, a party head must possess the qualifications and be free of the disqualifications contemplated in Articles and 63.