Five-year ban for MPs challenged

Plea filed with LHC claims Section 232(2) of Elections Act ‘illegal’

LAHORE:

A writ petition was filed in the Lahore High Court challenging Section 232(2) of the Elections Act 2017 that prescribed a five-year ban for individuals with criminal convictions to contest the polls, requesting that it should be declared “illegal and unconstitutional” under Article 62(1)(f) as well as also against the settled principles laid down in different landmark judgments.

Mian Shabbir Ismail filed this plea through senior lawyer Azhar Siddique praying the court to suspend any benefit and advantage via section 232(2) of the Elections Act until the final outcome of the petition. He implored in his petition that in the context of the case concerning disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) , the Supreme Court rendered its judgment via a short order on January 8, nullifying the notion of a lifetime ban.

The court, with a majority ratio of 6 to 1, abolished the concept of permanent disqualification. He argued that it was evident from the facts that the SC had decided some petitions as well as appeals pertaining to permanent disqualifications without touching Section 232(2) of the Election Act, wherein the recent verdict by the top court on lifetime bans had witnessed a dissenting note from Justice Yahya Afridi, highlighting a difference of opinion with the majority verdict of the bench.

Also read: SC strikes down lifetime ban on MPs

The legal conundrum arose after parliament passed amendments to the Elections Act, restricting the disqualification period of a politician to five years, instead of lifetime, contrary to the SC’s order, which deemed the ban under Article 62(1)(f) as “permanent”. The petitioner contended that Article 62(1)(f) could not be overshadowed by the outcome of a criminal proceeding for the same conduct as Article 62(1)

“Any view to the effect that qualifications and disqualifications were interchangeable and therefore, the consequences of incurring either, namely, period of ouster from the election contest should be similar because the same misconduct could form the subject matter of both provisions, was flawed,” the plea read. He contended in the petition that Section 232(2) of the Election Act was ultra vires of Article 17 of the Constitution that clearly explained the permanent disqualification of the candidate, who had been declared “dishonest” by a court.