ISLAMABAD: After hearing at length the counsels for the petitioners, amicus curiae and the federal government, the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the constitutional question that what should be the duration of disqualification for a disqualified lawmaker under Article 62 (1)(f) 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 reserved the verdict, to be announced later on, on 17 pleas filed by several parliamentarians who were disqualified for possessing fake degrees. In his submissions on Wednesday, Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf Ali argued that since the constitution does not determine the length of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f), the matter should be left on the parliament that may resolve it through legislation. The chief justice observed that until the duration of disqualification is not established, it will be considered for the whole life. The attorney general stated that the declaration of disqualification by the court could not end on its own, adding that the court would have to look into the matter on a case-to-case basis. He said determining the length of disqualification period of the disqualified lawmakers was actually the job of the parliament, thus it should be left on it to decide. To a court query, he said declaration of honesty does not expire on its own after some time. Justice Ijazul Ahsan noted that if a crime is committed, the provision applies for life. The attorney general then stated that in certain cases, the stain of disqualification continues even after the demise. He said until parliament does not legislate, the declaration of disqualification will hold the field. He said the constitution does not provide the mechanism of revisiting the declaration of disqualification. The attorney general said the matter of disqualification was also attached with the fundamental rights, which have been guaranteed in the constitution. Concluding his arguments, he said the matter should be left on the parliament to be resolved. Justice Ijazul Ahsan noted that the forum concerned and the court can remove the stain of disqualification, however, until then, the disqualification will continue. The chief justice observed that the disqualification will continue until the declaration signed by the electoral candidates declaring them honest holds the field. He said he was unable to understand that why parliament did not determine the duration of disqualification while passing the 18th Amendment in 2010. During an earlier hearing, the chief justice had admitted that Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution carried ambiguity to the extent of period of disqualification. Majority of the counsels have argued that articles 62 and 63 are joined, thus should be considered one. If these articles are considered to be joined, then the period of disqualification will stand at five years. Under Article 62, the maximum period of disqualification is five years. Published in Daily Times, February 15th 2018.