Supreme Court announces verdict in lifetime disqualification case

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan on Monday declared lifetime disqualification for lawmakers under Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution ‘null and void’, ruling that parliamentarians would be barred from holding office only for five years, ARY News reported.

A seven-member larger bench, headed by the CJP and comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, announced the reserved verdict on a set of petitions seeking to determine whether the disqualification period for a lawmaker was for five years or a lifetime.

The law is the same provision under which former prime minister and PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif and Istehkam-i-Pakistan Party (IPP) Chairman Jahangir Tareen were disqualified.

The bench announced the verdict with a 6-1 majority as Justice Yahya Afridi backed the apex court’s previous judgment.

In a short order issued today – a copy of which is available with ARY News, the Supreme Court declared that no person can be barred for a lifetime from running in elections if they are disqualified under Article 62 (1)(f), setting asides its 2018 judgment in the Samiullah Baloch case.

Following today’s verdict, both Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen have been cleared to contest the elections.

“Article 62(1)(f) is not a self-executory provision as it does not by itself specify the court of law that is to make the declaration mentioned therein nor does it provide for any procedure for making, and any period for disqualification incurred by, such declaration,” stated the order.

“There is no law that provides for the procedure, process and the identification of the court of law for making the declaration mentioned in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and the duration of such a declaration, for the purpose of disqualification thereunder, to meet the requirements of the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed by Article 10A of the Constitution,” it noted.

The court maintained that the “interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution in imposing a lifetime disqualification upon a person through an implied declaration of a court of civil jurisdiction while adjudicating upon some civil rights and obligations of the parties is beyond the scope of the said Article and amounts to reading into the Constitution”.

“Such reading into the Constitution is also against the principle of harmonious interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution as it abridges the Fundamental Right of citizens to contest elections and vote for a candidate of their choice enshrined in Article 17 of the Constitution, in the absence of reasonable restrictions imposed by law,” it added.

The court ruled that until a law was enacted to make its provision executory, Article 62(1)(f) stood on a similar footing as Article 62(1)(d)(e)(g) — which talks about the qualification of a lawmaker — and served as a guideline for voters in exercising their right to vote.

“The view taken in Sami Ullah Baloch v Abdul Karim Nausherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405) treating the declaration made by a court of civil jurisdiction regarding breach of certain civil rights and obligations as a declaration mentioned in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and making such declaration to have a lifelong disqualifying effect amounts to reading into the Constitution and is therefore overruled ,” the court added.

The Supreme Court also pointed out the recent amendments to the Elections Act, saying that they prescribed five years for the disqualification incurred by any judgment, order or decree of any court in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and had also made such declaration subject to the due process of law.

“This provision is already in field, and there remains no need to examine its validity and scope in the present case,” the top court ruled.

Justice Afridi’s dissent note

Meanwhile, Justice Yahya Afridi disagreed with his fellow judges in the seven-member bench, backing the supreme court’s 2018 judgement.

He noted that the extent of lack of qualification of a member of the Parliament, as envisaged under Article 62(1)(f) was “neither lifelong nor permanent and the same shall remain effective only during the period the declaration so made by a court of law remains in force”.

Therefore, the conclusion so drawn by this court in Sami Ullah Baloch Versus Abdul Karim Nousherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405) is legally valid, hence affirmed, Justice Afridi added.

The case

In 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that disqualification handed down under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is for life.

Under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan, which sets the precondition for a member of parliament to be ‘sadiq and ameen’ (honest and righteous), former prime minister and PMLN chief Nawaz Sharif was disqualified by the SC bench on July 28, 2017, in references about the Panama Papers.

Similarly, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder was also disqualified under the same article in the Toshakhana case in 2023.

However, in June, last year, the then-coalition government passed an amendment to the Elections Act 2017, which limited the disqualification of lawmakers to five years.