The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) while pronouncing a reserved verdict in the case pertaining to the interpretation of Article 62 (1)(F) has abolished the lifetime disqualification of politicians, clearing way for Nawaz Sharif and Jahangir Tareen to contest upcoming general elections on February 8.

The ruling was made by a distinguished 7-member bench of the apex court, featuring Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Mandukhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Justice Musrat Hilali.

The case centered around Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, which empowers the parliament to prescribe qualifications for contesting elections.

The Supreme Court rendered a crucial verdict, voting 6 to 1, which determined that politicians cannot be permanently disqualified under Article 62(1)(F). Emphasizing that contesting elections is a fundamental right of citizens, the Court asserted its constitutional authority, highlighting that Section 184(3) doesn't possess the power to impose lifelong disqualifications.

In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that political disqualifications won't span a lifetime. The judgment clarified that the Election Act stipulates a disqualification period of up to 5 years, indicating that the duration of disqualification doesn't necessitate legislative scrutiny but rather judicial interpretation of Article 62(1)(F) of the constitution. The court highlighted the necessity to interpret the constitution through declarations, lacking any specific legal processes for such declarations.

Justice Yahya Afridi expressed dissent, contending that disqualification under Article 62(1)(F) isn't inherently lifelong but extends until a judicial decision is made, echoing the correctness of the Samiullah Baloch decision.

This landmark decision led to the annulment of the ruling against Samiullah Baloch. Following this verdict, the disqualifications of PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif and Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party head Jahangir Tareen have been lifted.

Justice Yahya Afridi dissents majority decision in lifetime disqualification case

The recent verdict by the Supreme Court on lifetime disqualification has witnessed a dissenting note from Justice Yahya Afridi, highlighting a difference of opinion with the majority decision of the bench.

In the context of the case concerning disqualification for life under Article 62 1F, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark judgment, nullifying the notion of lifelong disqualification. The court, with a majority ratio of 6 to 1, abolished the concept of permanent disqualification. However, Justice Yahya Afridi, one of the seven judges constituting the larger bench, expressed dissent from this majority decision.

In his dissenting note, Justice Yahya Afridi asserted that interpreting Article 62 (1)(F) in isolation from the Constitution itself is an act of altering the constitutional framework. He argued against the application of this article based solely on duties or social rights, emphasizing the need to consider it within the broader constitutional context.

Previous Hearing

During previous hearing, 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.

Bilawal Bhutto advocates fair play and democratic values in political sphere

Chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, while commenting on the Supreme Court’s decision regarding disqualification period, emphasizing the importance of improving democracy and political systems in Pakistan.

Expressing his views on the disqualification period, he highlighted the significance of legal expertise in determining eligibility for individuals like Nawaz Sharif and members of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (TI). He reiterated the need to avoid political vendettas and encouraged democratic practices within political parties.

The PPP chairman stressed the need for politics to steer clear of personal animosity, advocating for a level playing field in elections.

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari asserted that during their governance, there were no instances of political imprisonment. He recalled how opposition members praised their governance for not incarcerating political adversaries, contrasting it with incidents of agitation, like the Islamabad unrest, under the previous government.

IPP hails SC’s landmark decision as a victory for democracy

The Central Secretary Information of the Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP), Dr. Firdous Ashiq Awan, has hailed the Supreme Court's landmark decision to strike down the lifelong disqualification of political leaders as an important victory for democracy.

In a statement released shortly after the verdict, Dr. Awan expressed her party's strong support for the ruling, emphasizing its potential to restore fairness and inclusivity to the political landscape.

Dr. Awan asserted that the ban on disqualifying political leaders from candidacy was an undemocratic act, emphasizing that the access of political representatives to the Parliament floor stands as their fundamental democratic right.

She expressed contentment that the court's decision has reinstated this essential democratic privilege to political leaders, ensuring their participation in the democratic process.

SC decision clears path for Nawaz, Tareen in Elections 2024

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Pakistan overturned its previous ruling, ending the lifetime disqualification of lawmakers under Article 62 (1)(f).

The decision, announced on Monday, has paved the way for influential political figures, including Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) supremo Nawaz Sharif and Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP) chief Jahangir Tareen, to participate in the upcoming elections scheduled for February 8.

PML-N elated at SC's decision striking down lifetime disqualification

Pakistan Muslim League - Nawaz (PML-N) spokesperson Marriyum Aurangzeb has praised the verdict of the Supreme Court (SC) in the case pertaining to the interpretation of Article 62-1F and abolished the lifetime disqualification.

While talking to SAMAA TV, she said that the 'historic' verdict of the top court serves as a lesson against the unjust use of power.

She stated that the decision today stands as a significant moment for justice, with the court challenging the powers exercised by former Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Saqib Nisar during his tenure.

"[Ex-CJP] Saqib Nisar must have an iota of shame today," said Marriyum Aurangzeb, while adding that the former top judge had given an unconstitutional verdict to punish Nawaz Sharif.

What is Article 62(1)(f) in Pakistan's Constitution?

Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution pertains to the qualification of members of Parliament and pertains to the terms 'Sadiq' and 'Ameen'.

CJP Isa asserts lifetime disqualification 'against Islam'

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa expressed that a lifetime disqualification from parliament is "against Islam" during the Supreme Court hearing on the case related to Article 62(1)(F) of the Constitution.

The case addresses contradictions in the Election Act, 2017, and the apex court's verdict on lifetime disqualification.

The CJP emphasized the need for clarity on whether the disqualification is for five years, per the 2017 amendment, or a lifetime ban.

CJP says if current clauses existed back then, 'Quaid-e-Azam would be disqualified too'

While hearing of a case related to the duration of disqualification of public office holders under Article 62(1)(f), Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa remarked that "if all these conditions existed back then, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah would also be disqualified".

The Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan supported restricting the disqualification period to five years as per the Elections Act and also supported proposed legislation to fix the disqualification period to five years under Article 62(1)(f).

The AGP sought reconsideration of the decision on lifetime disqualification of public officials. He then read out article 62, 63 of the Constitution and the constitutional requirements for eligibility to become a lawmaker and their disqualification. He further said that conditions under both articles 62 and 63 were considered at the time of submitting nomination papers.

Both articles applied at the time of entry, he further said.

“Some clauses are related to facts, and they are simple, while others are difficult as the ones about good character,” the CJP remarked, adding that possessing adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings is also a requirement.

“I don't know how many people will be able to pass this test,” he further said, adding that the Constitution did not even say that one must be a graduate to become a member of the assembly. “Later, such a law was probably enacted during the tenure of Pervez Musharraf.”