ISLAMABAD: One of the petitioners who challenged the controversial Elections Act of 2017 startled the Supreme Court on Friday when he sought disqualification of all those legislators who voted or supported the law when it was taken up for passage in parliament.

“It is most respectfully requested before the Honourable Supreme Court that all those members who voted in favour of Section 203 of the Elections Act [that allows a disqualified person to become the head of the political party] may kindly be disqualified and also declare Section 203 null and void,” pleaded Advocate Gohar Nawaz Sindhu who had moved the petition to challenge the controversial law in person.

“May be the legislation is wrong but how can the court disqualify the members for voting in favour of the law,” wondered Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar.

The chief justice was heading a three-judge SC bench hearing a set of petitions challenging the Elections Act 2017, mainly filed by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan, Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, the Pakistan Peoples Party and 10 others.

Case is being heard not against a particular individual but in a generalised manner, court observes

The counsel argued that the lawmakers who supported the passage of the law in fact worked against the country’s integrity and by voting in its favour also compromised the dignity of Pakistan since the passage of the law had sent a wrong message to the world that a person who had been disqualified by the highest court could become head of a political party.

At this, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan asked the counsel what he meant by the country’s integrity but then explained himself that this meant solidarity and oneness.

The counsel elaborated that loyalty to the state under Article 5 of the Constitution was the basic obligation of all citizens but those who voted in favour of the law seemed not loyal to the country. They could be disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, he said.

In a lighter note, however, the court observed that if the petitions were dismissed, a heavy cost could be imposed on him as the court wanted to curtail the trend of moving frivolous petitions. The chief justice also hinted at laying down certain norms for the court to maintain its dignity.

Earlier, Sheikh Ehsanuddin, representing the Pakistan Justice and Democratic Party, alleged that the unrelenting jibe of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif at different public meetings indicated that he allegedly had become an individual with unsound mind. He said Article 63 (a) suggested that a person could be disqualified from being elected or a parliament member if he was of unsound mind and had been so declared by a competent court of law.

The court, however, observed that it was not hearing a case against a particular individual but in a generalised manner.

The counsel highlighted that under Section 5(1) of the Political Party Order 2002, no person was entitled to be appointed or to serve as office-bearer of a political party if he was not qualified under Article 62 or was disqualified under Article 63 of the Constitution. If a disqualified person was allowed to hold a party office, the entire election process and political party formation would be affected badly, he argued.

He said the words such as sadiq, ameen and righteous persons should be interpreted in accordance with the preamble of the Constitution.

As political party formation and the right of association are subject to public morality, both Articles 62 and 63 should be interpreted with reference to the public morality, according to the counsel. Mr Sharif’s election to head the ruling PML-N after being disqualified by the apex court was in negation of the July 28 verdict of the five-judge SC bench, the counsel argued.

He contended that the Elections Act came into force on Oct 2, 2017, whereas Mr Sharif had already been disqualified on July 28, 2017.

Meanwhile, the court asked Tariq Asad, the counsel for another petitioner, Wadood Qureshi, to approach the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) if he wanted to challenge the law under Islamic injunctions.

The court told him that his petition could be separated to be heard later.

The proceeding was then adjourned till Monday when Salman Akram Raja will present PML-N’s point of view after which Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf will advance his arguments.

Published in Dawn, February 10th, 2018