ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court on Tuesday took up several petitionsregarding the determination of disqualification period under Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution.
A larger bench comprising Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice SheikhAzmat Saeed, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and JusticeSajjad Ali Shah heard 17 appeals against disqualification of lawmakersunder this Article.
The apex court had ordered former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and PakistanTehreek-i-Insaf’s former secretary general Jahangir Tareen to attend thehearing in person or through counsel.
Tareen appeared before the court in person while neither Nawaz Sharif norhis counsel attended the hearing. Therefore, the chief justice issued thesecond notice to Sharif, besides warning him of announcing the ex-partedecision on his absence. He remarked that the one-sided verdict will alsobe announced on merit.
Talking to the media before his appearance in court, Tareen said thatinterpretation of the law is necessary, adding that punishment for notproviding money trail and in fake degree case should be different.
The court also deployed senior advocate Muneer A Malik and Barrister AliZafar as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to assist the bench in thecase.
Article 62(1)(f) reads: “A person shall not be qualified to be elected orchosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless-…he is sagacious,righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declarationto the contrary by a court of law.”
The article does not specify any time period after which the disqualifiedperson can take part in elections.
The interpretation of the Article, which was much discussed after NawazSharif’s disqualification by the apex court in the Panamagate verdict, willhelp determine the period of punishment, making it clear whether a numberof lawmakers have been disqualified for life or time-specific.
The appeals are pending with the apex court for over one year as these werelast taken up by the Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali.
During the hearings, Jamali had wondered how anyone could be barred fromparticipating in elections for life under Articles 62 and 63, adding thatthey could again become qualified after reforming themselves during atime-period.