THE Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) has done well by deciding to settle the issue of lifetime disqualification once for all, clearing ambiguity created by the top court’s verdict on the matter and an act of Parliament. A three-member bench of the court, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Qazi Faez Isa, referred the dispute to the three-judge committee constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 to form a larger bench to hear the case in January 2024 and decide the matter accordingly.
The controversy arose in view of the April 18, 2018 Supreme Court judgment in Samiullah Baloch case, when it shut the doors of Parliament permanently on politicians disqualified under Article-62(1)(f) of the Constitution through a unanimous verdict, by ruling that such ineligibility was for life. But on June 26, 2023, an amendment was brought in the Elections Act 2017, specifying that the period of the electoral disqualification will be for five years, not for life. According to the amendment to Section 232 (Qualifications and Disqualifications) of the Elections Act, a permanent bar or disqualification of a member is against “the letter and spirit of Islam” as well as the Constitution. This is understandable as in Islam one is purified of sins on repentance and vowing not to repeat them but under the SC interpretation a person would continue to be considered guilty even if he/she reforms him/herself. No doubt, this amendment has not been challenged, therefore, can be construed as the law in vogue on the subject despite the presence of the earlier verdict of the apex court. However, the issue could mean much for some prospective candidates and their political rivals and decisions of the Returning Officers (ROs) in the matter could lead to electoral disputes, causing uncertainty about the fate of such candidates. With this view, the Supreme Court should have fixed the case for hearing in the shortest possible time as the Election Commission is about to issue an election schedule envisaging timeframe for submission of applications by respective candidates, their scrutiny, filing of objections and their decisions on appeals. As highlighted by the Chief Justice himself, returning officers, courts and tribunals would be confused on whether they should rely on the SC 2018 verdict or the Elections Act amendments. This confusion, therefore, ought to be cleared before the electoral processes or all candidates should be allowed to contest polls subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court.
