In the ongoing legal proceedings in Pakistan, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa expressed reservations about imposing a lifetime disqualification from parliament, stating it is “against Islam.” The Supreme Court is addressing contradictions in the Election Act, 2017, specifically Article 62(1)(F) of the Constitution, which pertains to the lifetime disqualification of lawmakers. The case involves former PML-N provincial lawmaker Sardar Meer Badshah Khan Qaisrani, who challenged his lifetime disqualification in 2007 over a fake degree.
The seven-member bench, led by CJP Isa, is seeking clarity on whether the disqualification period is five years, as per the 2017 amendment, or a lifetime ban under Article 62(1)(F). The proceedings were broadcast live to prevent confusion for returning officers during upcoming elections. CJP Isa referred to Islamic teachings, emphasizing that the Quran recognizes the high status of humans and that lifetime disqualification contradicts the possibility of repentance.
The chief justice argued that labeling individuals as permanently disqualified is a matter of perception, not constitutional clarity. He cautioned against filing cases in different courts, creating obstacles for the upcoming February 8 elections. The fate of several politicians, including Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen, hinges on the court’s decision regarding their eligibility to contest elections.
The court grappled with arguments from lawyers, including Khurram Raza, who defended lifetime disqualification, suggesting a constitutional amendment is needed to address the issue. Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan and appointed amici curiae also presented their perspectives.
The debate revolved around whether the 2018 ruling in the Samiullah Baloch case, defining disqualification under Article 62(1)(F) as “permanent,” could be nullified and if Parliament had the authority to challenge the court’s verdict through legislation. Faisal Siddiqui argued that while the court defined the disqualification period, the mechanism was flawed.
The court adjourned the hearing, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive resolution to the constitutional issue. The case has broader implications, impacting politicians’ eligibility and the interpretation of Article 62(1)(F). CJP Isa’s emphasis on Islamic principles adds a unique dimension to the legal discourse, framing the debate within a cultural and religious context.
As the proceedings continue, the decision will significantly shape the political landscape in Pakistan, determining the scope and duration of lawmakers’ disqualification, and addressing the apparent conflict between legislative amendments and judicial pronouncements.
