CJP Qaiz Faez Isa on Thursday said the Supreme Court is seeking “clarity” in the run-up to the February 8 general elections as it resumed hearing a set of petitions to determine whether the disqualification period for a lawmaker was five years or a lifetime ban. The seven-member larger bench, headed by the CJP and comprising Justice Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, is conducting the proceedings, which are being broadcast live. As the February 8 general elections approach, the apex court seeks to determine once and for all the debate on whether aspirants disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution could contest polls in light of the amendments in the Elections Act 2017.
The legal impasse arose in view of a 2018 SC judgment in the Samiullah Baloch case when the apex court ruled that disqualification handed down under Article 62(1)(f) was supposed to be “permanent”. In June 2023, an amendment was brought in the Elections Act 2017, specifying that the period of the electoral disqualification will be for five years, not for life. The dilemma cropped up in the top court last month during an electoral disqualification dispute moved by Sardar Mir Badshah Khan Qaisarani, who had filed nomination papers to contest the 2008 and 2018 elections but was disqualified for producing a fake graduation degree. His appeal is still pending before the Lahore High Court.
At one point, Justice Shah asked: “Does it not appear odd to you that for other crimes as big as treason, you could always come back and contest elections, but for a civil wrong…” the punishment in a way is for life. But if I were to commit a murder, rape or kidnapping… I could come back and contest elections”.
Raza replied that these arguments were present in Islamic principles. However, the CJP took exception to the contention.
“No matter how much you despise the members of the assembly, they are our representatives,” the top judge remarked. “You cannot give precedence to the wisdom of dictators over the wisdom of assembly members.”
Bhandari contended that the returning officers had two norms before them, the Elections Act amendment and the Sammiullah case judgment, and they had to enforce the higher of both norms. The CJP asked if a person could approach a court after disqualification and say he had now repented.
“In my opinion, the most dangerous thing that leads you to destruction is when you give too much discretion to anyone, whether it is a judge or bureaucrats. When discretion is not structured, where there is no principle or guideline… sorry to say, this does not make for sustainable law,” the top judge lamented.