In a hearing concerning the interpretation of Article 62-1F of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has reserved its decision following the completion of arguments from legal representatives.

A seven-member larger bench, headed by CJP Justice Qazi Faez Isa 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, conducted yet another marathon hearing in the case. The proceedings were broadcast live on the apex court’s website.

During the proceedings, the CJP made pertinent remarks, reflecting on the past five years that significantly impacted the country’s trajectory. He announced that all election-related cases would be addressed in the regular bench during the upcoming week, specifying that individual cases would be taken up separately.

Jahangir Tareen’s lawyer

The hearing witnessed arguments initiated by Jahangir Tareen’s lawyer, Makhdoom Ali Khan, who highlighted the relevance of the court's previous decision in the matter.

Responding to inquiries during the hearing, Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the declaration of disqualification would arise from a civil court decision, emphasizing that a civil court’s ruling does not revoke an individual’s fundamental constitutional rights. The discussion further explored the role of civil courts in issuing declarations of disqualification, leading to deliberations on the separate provisions of Articles 62 and 63 in the Constitution.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Mandokhel inquired about the scope of civil courts in declaring disqualifications, raising questions about the legislative role in determining the period of disqualification. The discourse during the session aimed to unravel the intricacies of constitutional provisions and their implications on eligibility and disqualification criteria.

CJP questions clause's origins

Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa raised critical points during the proceedings, questioning the focus on singular sections of the constitution while neglecting its historical context and fundamental rights. He emphasized the impact of inserting new details and stressed the need to remember Pakistan's history, expressing concern that those who caused significant harm to the nation become eligible after a mere five years.

Expressing skepticism, the Chief Justice queried if a mistake in nomination papers renders an individual ineligible for life. He questioned the clause's origins, suggesting it stemmed from a single general and wondering if it should bind everyone.

Nature of Articles 62, 63

Lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan highlighted the interconnected nature of Articles 62, 63, and Article 17, emphasizing that these constitutional provisions intertwine with fundamental rights.

The Chief Justice also raised concerns about the power to nullify constitutional amendments, contemplating the complexity of altering the constitution through simple legislation.

In a reflective moment, Justice Faiz Isa asked whether Pakistani parliamentarians rank as the world's best, to which Khan admitted it was unlikely. When asked if such a ranking exists elsewhere globally, Khan stated he was unaware of any such system worldwide.

During the hearing, Justice Mansoor delved into the Constitution since the 18th Amendment, emphasizing the reliance on constitutional tools for interpretation. In response, the Chief Justice highlighted that the Constitution doesn't state disqualification is lifelong, suggesting that general legislation could pave the way for constitutional amendments, raising concerns about unrestricted decision-making.

Reflecting on Pakistan's history, the Chief Justice expressed disappointment that no political party engaged in a case of disqualification, remarking on Ayub Khan's constitutional violations that set a precedent for subsequent actions.

Disparity between disqualification periods

Addressing lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan, the Chief Justice questioned the disparity between disqualification periods, citing a 10-year disqualification for convicts in NAB cases versus a seemingly indefinite disqualification in this context. He emphasized the need for clarity in such matters, warning against overly intricate criteria that may undermine public trust in the constitution.

Justice Jamal Mandukhel emphasized allowing the public to discern truth and honesty, underscoring the importance of public opinion. Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa echoed this sentiment, highlighting that the constitution isn't solely for lawyers but for the people, advocating for simplicity to maintain public trust.

Justice Musarat Hilali questioned the impact on constituents when one person faces a case, urging against broader repercussions for an entire circle due to a singular incident. Addressing the complexity of the matter, the Chief Justice acknowledged the formation of a larger bench to address these concerns, seeking clarity on the impending answers. Justice Mansoor Ali suggested waiting for resolutions from the expanded bench to streamline the matter.