Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned as to why all the political parties decided to keep Article 62(1) (f) intact when the 18th Amendment was passed by the parliament and made part of the constitution.

A five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, was hearing a set of pleas of several parliamentarians, who were disqualified on fake degrees.

The court has to interpret Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution to determine the period of disqualification for the disqualified lawmakers.

At the onset of hearing, the chief justice inquired why all the political parties decided to keep Article 62(1) (f) intact when the 18th Amendment was passed in 2010.

Kamran Murtaza, counsel for Mir Abdul Ghafoor Lehri, a former parliamentarian, who was disqualified by the Supreme Court in 2013 for failing to produce his BA degree, stated that the parliament did not touch Article 62 (1)(f) due to the fear of religious elements, adding that Article 62 and 63 were required to be read and examined together.

The chief justice noted that the parliament is supreme body but it kept itself away from touching the article. Kamran Murtaza argued that according to Article 62(1) (f), the member of the parliament will be disqualified for one term. He said the disqualified person can contest the next by-polls.

Appearing as amicus curiae, Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, while relying on AK Brohi’s “Fundamental Law of Pakistan” stated that the Constitution sets forth the principles of legal character of the state which include the parliament and hence every word and the concepts of Articles 62 and 63 are important as they determine the legal character of one essential part of the state – sovereign – the parliament.

He said the interpretation of the Constitution is very different from the interpretation of an ordinary law, thus the methods and tools used by the courts for interpreting the Constitution are also potentially different, although similar in many respects because the Constitution is given by the people and is a living document.

Referring to the declaration of honesty, which anyone who wishes to contest the election signs, the chief justice said it has to be seen that what the time limit has been given in the declaration.

He said until the declaration of honesty remains, the dishonesty of the individual will hold the field. He said the court has to determine the time period of how long the declaration will hold the field.

When Kamran Murtaza pointed out that the concept of forgiveness also exists within the law and his client has sought forgiveness, the chief justice noted that anyone who seeks forgiveness should appear before the court and explain his position.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked that in the cases of disqualification, forgiveness is sought through curse words. The chief justice noted that before seeking forgiveness, one must accept his mistake.

He said such people have to accept their dishonesty before the public, adding that there are some people who say they did nothing wrong and that injustice was done to them.

The chief justice observed that a disqualified lawmaker will have to prove through his or her conduct that the dishonesty has changed to honesty. During the hearing, when a counsel stated that the court verdict in contempt case against Senator Nehal Hashmi had made him upset, the chief justice said the decision in the Nehal Hashmi case was as per the law. Later, the court adjourned the hearing till February 8.

Published in Daily Times, February 2^nd 2018.