The recent Supreme Court decision to eliminate lifetime disqualification for lawmakers under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution has evoked a mixed response from the legal community. A 6-1 majority verdict, with dissent from Justice Yahya Afridi, not only saw the elimination of the previous lifetime disqualification rule but also overturned the Court’s 2018 judgement in the Samiullah Baloch case. This ruling clears former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen to contest elections.
Lawyer Basil Nabi Malik termed the decision a “much-needed correction in the legal landscape of Pakistan”. He said that the previous lifetime disqualification was problematic and controversial, as it infringed on the electorate’s right to choose their leadership. Barrister Asad Rahim, on the other hand, criticized the verdict, stating that the court has unsettled its own settled law.
Lawyer Mirza Moiz Baig remarked on the need to amend the nebulous provisions in the Constitution relating to the disqualification of legislators. Lawyer Rida Hosain pointed out the subjective and problematic nature of judging a person’s righteousness and honesty under Article 62(1)(f). She also expressed concern over the court defanging a constitutional provision and the implications for the finality of Supreme Court decisions.
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii called the verdict a correct interpretation of the Constitution, while lawyer Usama Khawar saw it as a positive and commendable development. Lawyer Salahuddin Ahmed also praised the decision and noted that the Court’s ruling went beyond eliminating the lifetime disqualification and held that courts could not disqualify lawmakers under Article 62(1)(f) until Parliament passed a law determining how the article’s criteria would be legally applied.