On Monday, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa stated that the Supreme Court’s previous decision on lifetime disqualification and the amendments made to the Elections Act, 2017 could not coexist.
In 2018, the apex court had issued a landmark verdict declaring that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution was meant to be permanent, a provision that led to the disqualification of figures like Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan.
However, in June of the current year, the coalition government passed an amendment to the Elections Act 2017, restricting lawmakers’ disqualification to five years with retrospective effect. CJP Isa noted that there was a conflict between the 2018 SC verdict and the Election (Amendment) Act, 2023, and emphasized that only one of them could be upheld.
During the hearing on the disqualification of ex-MPA Meer Badshah Khan Qaisrani, Justice Isa expressed concerns about potential confusion in the upcoming general elections due to discrepancies between the SC’s interpretation and the law. Consequently, he referred the matter to a three-judge panel, which would constitute the bench for the case. Notices were issued to the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, advocate generals of all provinces, and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to provide assistance.
Justice Athar Minallah affirmed that the polls would take place on February 8 and warned against spreading uncertainty about the elections, declaring such actions as contempt. The court clarified that the ongoing case should not be exploited by the ECP or any other party to delay the upcoming elections.
The Hearing
During proceedings, Chief Justice Isa questioned the basis of a petitioner’s disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) due to a fake degree. There was debate on how recent amendments to the Elections Act, limiting disqualification to five years, conflicted with the Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict on lifetime disqualification.
The court grappled with whether the previous judgment or the new amendment should prevail, given the upcoming elections. The disagreement over the duration of disqualification for various offenses added complexity. Chief Justice Isa emphasized the need for clarity, expressing concern about the confusion it could create in the electoral process.
Attorney General Awan contended that the Elections Act amendments took precedence over the SC’s previous ruling. The case was referred to a panel for further deliberation on this constitutional issue.
