ISLAMABAD: In a forceful observation, the Supreme Court said on Thursday it would interpret Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, with no concern for whether “one member goes home or half the parliament”. Both articles lay down the qualifications and disqualifications for becoming a member of parliament.
“We are not bothered whether one member, or ten, or half of the parliament has to go, we will decide the matter before us,” observed Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja.
He is heading a two-judge bench that is hearing three identical petitions, filed by Gohar Nawaz Sindhu, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf leader Ishaq Khakwani and PML-Q chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain. All three seek the prime minister’s disqualification for his allegedly false statement, made on the floor of the National Assembly on Aug 29, saying that the government did not ask the army chief to mediate or become a guarantor between the government and the protesting parties in a bid to end their sit-in on Constitution Avenue.
Also read: DO ARTICLES 62 AND 63 REQUIRE REFORMING?
At the last hearing on Oct 16, the court had acknowledged that the Constitution was silent on the exact definition of the words sadiq (truthful) and ameen (righteous).
Justice Khawaja says court doesn’t care whether one or all parliamentarians go home
On Thursday, the court said that election disputes were bound to arise in the context of the criteria for elected representatives’ qualification and the courts would be flooded with litigation, questioning the credentials of intending candidates whenever elections were held, be it after a year or after the present government completes its term.
Justice Khawaja observed that, as Mr Sindhu had contended, the matter of the disqualification of a member of parliament had come before the apex court for the first time after the passage of the 18th Amendment. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the court to interpret Articles 62 and 63, which laid down the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of the parliament, respectively.
Sindhu also argued that it should be settled once and for all what kind of people should sit in parliament.
Attorney General Salman Aslam Butt, meanwhile, told the court that similar questions regarding the disqualification of the members were pending before a five-judge larger bench of the Supreme Court. The key question the court should consider in these cases is whether the high court, where Sindhu first moved the petition, had the jurisdiction to decide the matter in view of certain protections that were available to members of parliament under Article 66 of the Constitution.
But Justice Khawaja observed that the court’s interpretation of Articles 62 and 63 would make Article 66 redundant.
It is incumbent upon every citizen to always speak the truth, regardless of whether he is inside parliament or outside. Truth is a trust which belongs to the nation, the judge observed.
The Supreme Court asked the AG to submit a concise statement on behalf of the government within seven days and answer the questions raised by the petitioners through their petitions.
The court also asked Chaudhry Shujaat, Ishaq Khakwani and Sindhu, who is also vice president of the PTI Punjab lawyers’ wing, to submit written statements in court, clarifying whether they had moved the petitions on their own or on behalf of their respective parties.
Published in Dawn, October 24th, 2014