Disqualification Act: CJP says that if there were current clauses at the time, “would also disqualify Quaid-e-Azam”

The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing on a case related to the duration of the disqualification of public office holders under Article 62 (1) (f) to Thursday, while the Supreme Judge of Pakistan (CJP), Qazi Faez Isa, noted during the hearing: “If …  “If all these conditions existed at the time, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah would also be disqualified.”

On Tuesday, a seven-member Supreme Court chamber, led by CJP Isa, consisting of Judge Mansoor Ali Shah, Judge Yahya Afridi, Judge Aminuddin Khan, Judge Jamal Mandokhel, negotiated, Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Judge Musarrat Hilali, on the case determining the duration of the disqualification in accordance with Article 62 paragraph 1 letter f of the Constitution.

Pakistani Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awaz advocated the limitation of the blocking period to five years in accordance with the electoral law and supported the legislative proposal to set the blocking period to five years in accordance with Article 62 paragraph 1 letter f.

Read more: Prime Minister Kakar “loses the version” due to Baluch protests in the capital

The AGP requested that the decision on lifelong disqualification of public officials be re-examined. He then read Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and the constitutional requirements for admission to the legislature and their exclusion. He further said that the conditions of Articles 62 and 63 had been considered at the time the nomination documents were submitted.

Both articles were valid at the time of entry, he said.

 “Some clauses relate to facts and are simple, while others are difficult, such as the good character”, the CJP noted, adding, that sufficient knowledge of the Islamic teachings is also required.

 “I don’t know how many people will pass this test”, he said, adding that the constitution doesn’t even provide that you must have a university degree, to become a member of the assembly. “Such a law was probably enacted later during Pervez Musharraf’s tenure.”

Read more: SC will deal with the matter of  “lifelong disqualification” today

In the Samiullah Baloch case, the Supreme Court stated that the duration of the disqualification was not fixed, but for life, the Supreme Judge noted. He asked if it was possible to accept the five-year disqualification law without touching this decision.

He then asked which of the petitioners advocated lifelong disqualification. The plaintiff Sanaullah Baloch, the lawyer Khurram Raza and Usman Karim answered in the affirmative.

The CJP asked whether Samiullah Baloch’s decision could be revised. The AGP replied that the court had ignored one point in this case; It said that in criminal proceedings a person goes to prison after the conviction, why the blocking period was short.

 “The court did not see that a statement remains in both criminal matters and Article 62 (1) (f)”, said the AGP.

Read more: Supreme Judge Isa expresses his anger at the order of the Peshawar Supreme Court to uninstall RO

 “How can the character of a person be determined?” asked the CJP. According to Islamic standards, no one could claim an outstanding character, and Article 62 did not specify the duration of the disqualification, but the court decided it, he added. Chief Justice

“A lifelong disqualification declaration remains if there are court decisions”, the AGP replied.

Judge Mansoor Ali Shah asked whether the constitution needed to be changed to overturn the Supreme Court decision and whether what was in the constitution could be changed by law.

Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution did not mention the period of disqualification.

The Supreme Court stated in its decision that the disqualification would remain for life if the court decision was in force, said the AGP.

Read more: Pakistan: Imran Khan’s party today questions rejection of nomination papers

“In serious crimes such as murder and treason, elections can be held after a while”, Judge Shah remarked, asking if lifelong disqualification was appropriate for trivial reasons.

“Did the Supreme Court use the statement as part of its Suo Motu powers?” asked Judge Mazhar.

The CJP noted that, according to Article 63 (1) (g), the disqualification of a person who violates national integrity and ideology is five years.

 “If a person has been charged in a case, they can return after two years”, AGP Awan said, adding that he cannot return, if there was no case other than an explanation.

 “Can someone swear under oath that he has a good character?” Asked the CJP.

“If someone becomes a good person and religious scholar after 20 years, is his character considered good?” Judge Shah asked if anyone who would give a speech against the country could still vote today.

Read more: Five terrorists killed in Awaran operation: ISPR

At the request of the CJP, the AGP read Article 62 (1) (d), according to which a person is eligible for elections if he is of a good nature and does not violate Islamic commandments.

 “If a person with a good character cannot waste anything, then a person who wastes water during the wash is also not eligible to participate”, the CJP noted.  “A Muslim can only use the words Sadiq and Ameen for the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).”

 “If all of these conditions had been met beforehand, even the Quaid-e-Azam would have been disqualified”, said CJP Isa.  “Islam also offers space for repentance.”

Judge Jamal Mandokhel asked where the disqualification period was mentioned in Article 62 (1) (f).

 “If you waste a lot of water on the wash, it is a negation of the hadith”, said the CJP, adding that the strict admission criteria for parliamentarians did not apply to the judges.

 “If unelected people legislate, the following happens”, Judge Mandokhel remarked.

Read more: PTI will contest the rejection of the nomination documents today 

The CJP asked whether Article 62 (1) (f) was applicable in criminal matters if the court declared a person to be a liar because the court had misled the court.

Supreme Court Bar President Shahzad Shaukat told the court that he supported the blocking period law.

Patent Usman Karim’s lawyer said that if Samiullah Baloch’s decision was made, no new law could be enacted.

He then informed the court that he was in favor of lifelong disqualification if the Supreme Court’s decision existed.

Samiullah Baloch’s brother Sanaullah Baloch said he believed in the domination of the judiciary and the CJP asked him what he meant.

Judge Shah said it was enshrined in the constitution that lies would lead to lifelong exclusion. “In cases of murder and treason, elections can be held after a temporary suspension”, he added.

Read more: 13 INJURED WHEN BUS TIPPED OVER IN ARIFWALA

 “If someone lied at the beginning of the electoral process, he will be disqualified for life”, said Baloch.

Jahangir Tareen’s lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan said he was in favor of setting Article 62 (1) (f) blocking period to five years.

 “In 1985, a military dictator who trampled on the constitution added Articles 62 and 63. How can an administrator of martial law set admission criteria in the constitution?”  The chief judge was interviewed.