ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Thursday challenged the life disqualification of MPs in the Supreme Court, praying to declare that the declaration by a court of law under Article 62(1)(f) only under question applies to elections. And that doesn't include permanent/lifetime bars.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Ahsen Bhun filed a constitutional petition in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, with the Federation of Pakistan as the respondent through the Secretary of the Ministry of Law and Justice. He urged the Apex Court to declare that proceedings/declarations under Article 184(3) or 199 of the Constitution are not declarations declared by any Court in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court.
In his petition, Ahsen Bhun submitted that it was necessary to reconcile the jurisprudence of this court to consider whether the denial of the right of appeal – resulting in lifelong disqualification – is a violation of the fundamental rights of such persons, as well as Along with his potential voters, he recalled that the top court has identified certain due process protections given to a candidate/member of parliament for a court/tribunal to make a declaration under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
He argued that in the case of Samiullah Baloch, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that the disqualification is perpetual, as was held in the Abdul Ghaffar Lahiri case, because anyone against whom such a declaration is made, There are adequate treatments available for that.
Ahsen Bhun in his petition said, "However, what has not been noticed is that there is no adequate remedy available in the absence of the right of appeal against the decision made by this Court under Article 184(3) "
They submitted that the remedy of review under Article 188, against a judgment under Article 184(3), is neither sufficient nor, by any stretch of the imagination, can substitute or substitute the right of appeal. The petitioner questioned whether the Lifetime Bar can be read in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, when the simple language of the above provision does not prescribe so?
Whether this Court in Sami Ullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nausherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405) correctly commended the Islamic principles of Tauba (repentance) and Magafirat (forgiveness), while holding that they are not applicable as Articles Will 62(1)(f) is concerned, Ahsen Bhun further questioned. He further questioned whether proceedings under Article 184(3) or Article 199 adequately satisfy the requirements of Article 10A for the purpose of declaration under Article 62(1)(f)?
The petitioner submitted that an equally plausible reading of Article 62(1)(f) may be that the person not fulfilling any of the conditions/qualifications laid down in this article would be liable to a person only for the time being, or for any particular election. Or will be ineligible for office. under challenge. It can also be argued that where disqualification is time bound, the Constitution says so i.e. in Article 63.
The petitioner said, "It is an established principle of interpretation that where the import of certain Acts is inconclusive or ambiguous, the court may rightly lean in favor of an interpretation which protects the rights of a person." As specified by the constitution itself, the language cannot be read in it.
He further said that there is no mention of disqualification being permanent or indefinite under Article 62(1)(f), therefore, it cannot be presumed. The legislative intent behind the insertion of "no declaration to the contrary is made by the Court" in Article 62(1)(f) under the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010, to create a safeguard against misuse appears to be of this provision”, submitted Ahsen Bhun. Before incorporating the aforesaid language, the petitioner argued that the Returning Officer, in the brief proceedings, was invoking this provision to exclude candidates from the election process on the objections of rival candidates.
The petitioner said, "If Parliament had intended to perpetuate a declaration under Article 62(1)(f), it would have said so by inserting specific language to that effect." Article 62(1)(f) of Abdul Ghafoor Lahiri, Sami Ullah Baloch and all other judgments which follow the above judgments.
The petitioner submitted that in the Sami Ullah Baloch case, it was also briefly argued that the Islamic concepts of Maghfirat and Tawba exemplify the value of repentance and forgiveness, thereby giving a person the scars of a declaration under Article 62(1). Opportunity to be free. (F).
However, this court observed that since high standards are expected from persons aspiring to become Members of Parliament, the above principles would not be applicable, the petitioner said.