ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday has raised questions on what will be the appropriate forum for deciding the disqualification of a parliamentarian after the passage of 18th amendment, as it heard a case on the prime minister’s disqualification.
Acting chief justice Jawwad S Khawaja, while heading the three judge bench of the apex court, sought assistance from the Attorney General for Pakistan on deciding four questions relating to the disqualification of a parliamentarian.
The bench questioned that what will be the ‘appropriate forum’ to disqualify a parliamentarian? If courts are the correct forum, then which court will be competent to initiate the trail, what will be the procedure regarding the disqualification of a parliamentarian and what kind of evidences will be required to disqualify a parliamentarian.
During the hearing, Justice Khawaja also asked whether Article 10-A of the constitution will be applicable and who will have the locus standi to challenge the qualification before the competent court. He said that it is the will of people that their representative should be ‘Sadiq and Ameen’
Justice Khawaja added that they had no concern whether the premier or the interior minister are disqualified in this case or not, adding that they will give a ruling in accordance with the Constitution.
For this part, AGP Salman Aslam Butt contended before the bench that the court has already decided to form a larger bench to decide issues pertaining to the disqualification of parliamentarians, therefore, this case should be referred to the same bench as well.
On the other hand, Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmani, who is a member of the bench, observed that sitting parliamentarians had qualified for the assembly by passing the test of Sadiq and Ameen in view of Article 62 of the Constitution.
He added that after the insertion of 18th amendment, Retuning Officers can not disqualify a candidate until and unless he is convicted by a court of law. Earlier, ROs had disqualified the candidates over minor issues, therefore, the legislature inserted a clause that no one can be disqualified unless they are declared to be disqualified by a court of law.
Justice Osmani asked the petitioner to explain which clause of the Constitution says a liar can be disqualified from the parliament. Justice Osmani also made it clear that there is no remedy against the Speaker National Assembly’s ruling regarding the qualification of any MNA.
Justice Khawaja further observed that if the court takes notice on media statements of parliamentarians, then the whole parliament will be disqualified.
PTI’s counsel dissatisfied over court’s proceedings
Irfan Qadir, the counsel for PTI leader Ishaq Ahmad Khakwani, expressed his dissatisfaction over the court’s proceedings in PM disqualification case. He stated that 65 days have passed since the case had been filed, but no meaningful hearing has conducted.
Further, the counsel has requested the bench to fix their matter related to the recusal of Justice Khawaja first. He also raised question over the impartiality of registrar office in this matter. He requested Justice Khawaja, who is performing duty as acting CJ, to fix appeal against registrar office’s order, wherein their plea regarding his recusal was returned by raising objections.
Justice Khawaja asked Irfan Qadir that another petitioner Insaf Lawyers Forum senior vice president Gohar Sindhu says that he should hear his case but he is requesting for recusal.
On the previous hearing, Justice Khawaja observed that they will deliver written order in this case in the evening. He also stated that the next hearing of the case will be heard in Quetta registry on Monday.
Justice Khawaja also said that everyone should give special attention to Balochistan, adding that he also urged CJP Nasir ul Mulk to form Supreme Court’s benches in Quetta registry to give speedy justice to the people of province. He lamented that our history is silent over the disintegration of country (fall of Dhaka).
On the other hand, the bench could not pass order in the evening and the case has gain listed by tomorrow (Thursday)
COMMENTS (7)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
after lapse of 65 days, SC is still still undecide about the proper forum for hearing this case.we can imagine the state of affairs in lower courts.
If lying becomes a std for holding office then your going to have a small Parliament - certainly nobody in PTI would stand up to that litmus test. In a Democracy the voters are suppose to decide who gets into office - not the judiciary - heck voters have approved convicted criminals (Zardari comes to mind) and that seemed to be Constitutionally correct.
justice delayed is justice denied...thank you supreme court now we have lost faith in you,too.
The right hand of ' status quo ' shaking the left hand hand of ' status quo '.
When people motivated by the writings of Nasim Hijazi or Ibne Safi reach on top posts then what happens to a society is the same what is happening to this watne aziz.
So the SC has legitimised government of liars, for liars and by liars.
What was the right forum when you and your corrupt buddy disqualified an elected prime minister? The logic used by these judges is so twisted that it gives anxiety to any right minded person.