Lawmaker to remain disqualified until court cancels it: SC
Justice Ijazul Ahsan said on Tuesday that a lawmaker would remain disqualified until a court cancelled the declaration for his disqualification.
He made the comments as a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and also comprising Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, resumed hearing the presidential reference seeking the apex court’s interpretation of Article 63-A of the Constitution, which is related to disqualification of lawmakers over defection.
During today’s hearing, PTI’S lawyer Babar Awan presented his arguments on behalf of party chief Imran Khan. He argued that those who were defaulting on the payment of their utility bills were also not eligible to become a member of parliament.
“If the time period is not determined then the disqualification is for life,” he contended.
At this, Justice Mandokhail asked whether the lawmaker would continue to remain disqualified if they paid their outstanding utility bills before the next election.
Justice Ahsan said that the lawmakers’ disqualification would end once the outstanding dues are paid. Only disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) — which sets the precondition for a member of parliament to be “sadiq and ameen” (honest and righteous) — is life-long, he observed.
But, he added, that the “disqualification will remain in place until the declaration is cancelled by the court”. “Disqualification for the non-payment of utility bills cannot be for life,” Justice Ahsan added.
Awan went on to say that it was an affront to Article 63-A if a lawmaker was de-seated and then returned to parliament within 15 days to perhaps become a minister.
Justice Mandokhail replied by telling Awan to carry out law reforms. “The door of repentance is always open,” he stated.
Justice Miankhel called on the counsel to read Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution. “You are asking us to declare dissident lawmakers disqualified for life,” he said, to which Awan replied that it was a “serious crime”. “In my eyes, the violation of Article 63(1)(g) is a more serious crime,” Justice Miankhel replied, adding that it concerned the ridiculing of the judiciary and the army as well as the ideology of Pakistan.
Article 63(1)(g) says that a member of the parliament stands disqualified from the membership of the parliament if he has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, that is prejudicial to the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames the judiciary or brings it into ridicule.
The observation by the judge comes amid criticism of the judiciary by the PTI chairman, who has been questioning why courts opened their doors late in the night before his ouster as prime minister through a no-confidence motion. The judiciary has defended its actions, with the Islamabad High Court stating that matters of extreme urgency can be brought to the attention of the court at any time. During the hearing, Justice Akhtar also asked how Article 63-A was related to Article 62(1)(f). Awan replied that his argument was that Article 63-A itself disqualified dissident lawmakers for life.
“Should 26 lawmakers be allowed to abandon the party?” he asked. In this way, the party with the majority would come in the minority, he said. “You want the (interpretation of) Article 63-A to be so rigid that no lawmaker can defect,” Justice Ahsan observed.
The PTI counsel argued that a “surgical strike” was inserted in Article 63-A under the 18th Amendment to get rid of the cancer that was defection. He added that the 18th Amendment was unanimously passed by parliament.
At one point, he also gave the reference of the SC verdict which legitimised former military ruler General Pervez Musharraf’s martial law. “The apex court gave Musharraf the power to amend the Constitution,” he said, adding that the powers of the court were unlimited.
“Some say the judiciary should be independent while others say it should be subservient to the Constitution. Parliament, the judiciary and the executive should all be subservient to the Constitution,” Justice Mandokhail said.
Only the judiciary can ensure everyone is subservient to the Constitution, Awan responded. The judiciary not only interprets the Constitution but also makes laws clear with its decisions, he said.