SCBA challenges objections over Article 62(1)(f) plea

SC Registrar’s Office had returned petition saying lifetime disqualification of MPs already settled by five judges

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Friday challenged the objections raised by the top court’s Registrar's Office on its constitutional petition against the lifetime disqualification of lawmakers under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Earlier, the Supreme Court Registrar Office had refused to entertain the petition filed by the SCBA.

Article 62(1)(f), which sets the precondition for a member of parliament to be “sadiq and amen” (honest and righteous), is the same provision under which former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified by a five-judge SC bench on July 28, 2017 in the Panama Papers case.

Similarly, PTI leader Jahangir Tareen was disqualified by a separate bench of the apex court under the same provision.

In 2018, a five-judge SC bench had unanimously held that disqualification handed down under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution was for life.

The SCBA petition had requested the top court to proclaim that the proceedings and declarations under Articles 184(3) or 199 of the Constitution did not constitute declarations by a court of law, as per the principles expounded by it.

Read SC refuses to entertain plea against lifetime disqualification

Last month, the SC Registrar’s Office had returned SCBA petition by raising objections.

The Registrar’s Office had stated that the matter had already been settled by five judges of a larger bench. Likewise, an objection was also raised on the locus standi of the petitioner.

Now the SCBA has filed an appeal against the objections raised by the Registrar’s Office.

The appeal contended that the apex court had evolved and regulated its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

“[As] per the jurisprudence of this August Court, the instant Constitutional Petition fulfils the criteria for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Thus, the order is liable to be set aside.”

The appeal added that the instant constitutional petition related not only to the qualification for election to the Senate, but to that for any elected representative, including MNAs, MPAs and office-bearers of local governments.

“Thus, the question raised in the instant constitutional petition satisfies the test for public importance as has been held by this court.”

The appeal further read that in terms of Article 189 of the constitution, the judgments pronounced by the SC were binding on all other courts in the country.

It contended that there was no other forum than the SC that could reexamine the earlier position taken by it by entertaining the instant constitutional petition.

“ It is also important to note here that this honourable court, in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution, is the only court empowered to reconsider, reevaluate and reexamine its earlier decisions, especially where novel questions are raised, as is the case in the instant constitutional petition. The petitioners/appellants, therefore, could not seek the relief prayed for before any other court other than this honourable court."

The appellants prayed to the SC that the appeal be accepted and the order of the assistant registrar issued on January 29 this year be set aside.

“Direction be issued that the constitutional petition filed by the present appellants may graciously be entertained, numbered, registered and placed before the court for its disposal on merits."