Pakistan Supreme Court to take up lifetime disqualification matter

Islamabad [Pakistan], December 12 (ANI): The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday took notice of the discrepancy between the judicial decision on lifetime disqualification under Article 62 (1) (f) and the amendments made to the Elections Act, 2017, ARY News reported.

ARY News is a Pakistani news channel.

The top court scheduled the hearing for January 2024 and referred the matter, pertaining to ascertaining the period for disqualification, to the judges’ committee for the constitution of a bench.

It also issued notices to Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, advocate generals of all the provinces and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to assist the SC, as per Dawn.

The Supreme Court’s notice came on a petition filed by a former MPA of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), Shamona Badshah Qaisrani, who was disqualified over a fake degree in 2007.

During the hearing on Monday, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa remarked that the Supreme Court’s verdict on lifetime disqualification and the amendments made to the Elections Act, 2017 could not co-exist.

The chief justice observed that either the Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict or the Election (Amendment) Act, 2023, could be upheld. He noted that discrepancies in the SC’s interpretation and the law could result in “confusion” in general elections in 2024.

CJP Isa inquired why the petitioner was disqualified, to which Advocate Saqib Jilani replied that Qaisrani was disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution based on a fake degree in 2007, as per Dawn.

In 2018, the Lahore High Court granted the former lawmaker permission to contest polls.

Meanwhile, Justice Athar Minallah pointed out that the case was connected to the 2018 elections and inquired if it was still admissible for the upcoming polls.

Responding to the query, Jilani said that the current case would have an impact on the upcoming elections as well.

“How can lifetime disqualification continue if a person’s sentence comes to an end?” Justice Isa asked.

To which the lawyer replied that a person should be disqualified for submitting nomination papers on false affidavits and pointed out the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Panama Papers case on the interpretation of Article 61(1)(f).

Later, CJP Faez asked if a new law pertaining to Article 62(1)(f) and lifetime disqualification had been passed recently, to which the lawyer said the Elections Act was amended and disqualification was limited to five years.

Justice Minallah, on the other hand, noted that the SC’s verdict on lifetime disqualification had become “ineffective” after amendments to the Elections Act.

“As general elections draw near, a confusion would be created whether they should rely on the SC 2018 verdict or the Election Act amendments. This is not good for democracy,” Justice Isa replied, according to Dawn.

Justice Minallah remarked that there was no uncertainty regarding the next elections, and anyone trying to encourage them will be in contempt of the apex court.

The court observed that the current matter will not be allowed to be used as a tool to delay the February 8, 2024, polls, urging for notices regarding the case to be published in two mainstream English dailies, Dawn reported.