The Supreme Court on Monday referred an electoral disqualification dispute to a three-judge committee constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 to fix a larger bench to conclusively resolve the question of whether politicians disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) can contest polls in light of amendments to the Elections Act, 2017.
In 2018, a Supreme Court ruling determined any politician disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution was ineligible for holding public office for life, effectively sidelining PMLN leader Nawaz Sharif and IPP leader Jahangir Khan Tareen. Earlier this year, however, Parliament amended the Elections Act, 2017, fixing the period of electoral disqualification at five years, not life.
On Monday, the a three-member bench—headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa—ruled the matter should be placed before a committee comprising the CJP and Justices Sardar Tariq Masood and Ijazul Ahsan to constitute a larger bench and fix the case for hearing in January. Justice Athar Minallah, a member of the bench, further clarified that the case should not be used as a pretext to delay the upcoming general elections, and cautioned that anyone continuing to question the conduct of the polls was exposing themselves to contempt of court.
In its order, the apex court sought assistance from Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, provincial advocate generals, and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). It also ordered the publication of a public notice so that any individual or political party could become party to the case if they wished.
The present case before the court pertained to Sardar Mir Badshah Khan Qaisarani, who filed nomination papers from constituency NA-189 and PP-240 in the 2008 and 2018 elections, respectively, before being disqualified over a fake graduation degree. During proceedings, the additional attorney general argued that Section 232 of the Elections Act—restricting disqualification to five years—prevailed, while the counsel for the appellant maintained the disqualification period under Article 62(1)(f) was fixed to a lifetime.
Noting the amended Elections Act had not been challenged and could cause confusion during the nomination process, the court observed this situation was not conducive for democracy. Justice Minallah and the CJP also questioned how a politician convicted of murder only faced five years’ disqualification, but one involved in corruption cases was disqualified for life.
The CJP further remarked that the amendment in question appeared to be applied with retrospective effect. Referring to Article 63 of the Constitution, which deals with the disqualification of lawmakers, he noted it fixed ineligibility for five, three, or two years, depending on the offense. “The one who destroys the country should be disqualified for life from contesting elections,” he observed, adding that currently even someone convicted of high treason was only disqualified for five years.