ISLAMABAD: In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that disqualification handed down under Article 62 (1)(f) of the constitution is for life.
It was a unanimous verdict reserved on Feb 14, 2018, by a five-member Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, Justice Umer Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah.
The verdict announced by Justice Umer Ata Bandial stated that the disqualification of any member of parliament or a public servant under Article 62 (1)(f) in the future will be permanent and such a person will be ineligible to contest elections, become a member of parliament or hold any public office.
“Considering that the constitution does not fix the period of incapacitation of such a judgment debtor shows a clear intention that the lack of qualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution should extend so long as the declaration of law envisaged in Article 62(1)(f) remains in the field,” the verdict reads.
Before announcement of the verdict, the chief justice observed that the public deserves leaders of good character and prestige. The verdict states that the restriction imposed by Article 62 (1)(f) of the constitution for the eligibility of a candidate for election to parliament serves the public need and interest for honest, upright, truthful, trustworthy and prudent elected representatives.
It states that the judicial mechanism in Article 62 (1)(f) grants a fair opportunity for relief to a candidate under challenge to vindicate himself, thus the permanent incapacity of a candidate for election under Article 62 (1)(f) of the constitution is not an arbitrary, excessive or unreasonable curtailment of his fundamental right under Article 17(2) of the constitution.
“In the post-18th Constitutional Amendment scenario, an adverse declaration by a court of law against a candidate is necessary to oust him from an election. However, it was held in Abdul Ghafoor Lehri vs Returning Officer, PB-29 (2013 SCMR 1271) that a false declaration made in the nomination papers by a candidate about his academic qualification led to a permanent embargo on the candidature for election. This is because Article 62 of the constitution did not provide any period for which a person would stand debarred from contesting elections and, therefore, the appellant before the court could not become qualified merely by efflux of time,” the verdict stated.
“In the result, we are inclined to hold that the incapacity created for failing to meet the qualifications under Article 62 (1)(f) of the constitution imposes a permanent bar which remains in effect so long as the declaratory judgment supporting the conclusion of one of the delinquent kinds of conduct under Article 62 (1)(f) of the constitution remains in effect,” the verdict ruled.
Meanwhile, in his additional note, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed noted that the court was empowered to interpret the constitution but not amend it. “It is an equally elemental principle of interpretation of the constitution that nothing can be added thereto, therefore, we (SC) cannot read into Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution, a period of such lack of qualification, which is not mentioned therein,” he wrote.
He stated that some counsels had expressed concern over lifetime disqualification saying this may be disproportionate and a little harsh. “Such arguments are perhaps more suitable to the floor of parliament than at the bar before this court. We, as stated above, can only interpret the constitution not amend or change it,” he noted.
“This aspect of the matter is rather ironic as several persons before us were or had been the members of parliament at some point of time and may have passed the amendments, which now stand in their way,” he further noted.
“This court on more than one occasions has already held that lack of qualification suffered under Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution is in perpetuity,” Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed wrote in his additional note.
Article 62(1)(f), which sets the precondition for a member of parliament to be “sadiq and ameen” (honest and righteous), is the same provision under which Nawaz Sharif was disqualified as a prime minister by a five-member Supreme Court bench on July 28, 2017, in the Panama Papers case.
Similarly, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader and former secretary general Jahangir Tareen was also disqualified by a three-member Supreme Court bench on Dec 15, 2017, under the same provision. Under the verdict, Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen have become ineligible for life to hold any public office.
As many as 17 appeals and petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the length of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) for possessing fake degrees.
Published in Daily Times, April 14th 2018.
