ISLAMABAD, July 10: Chief Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad on Wednesday observed that voters were the best judge to decide which candidate was best to them.

Heading a five judges bench, seized of the petitions challenging the graduation condition for the members of parliament and the provincial assemblies, the CJ observed that people were the best judge to decide about the qualifications of the candidates.

Justice Munir A. Sheikh, a senior member of the bench, observed that in the parliamentary form of government, the parliamentary party controlled the prime minister but in Pakistan it was the other way round.

Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, former chief justice of the Balochistan High Court, observed that the government was spending only 2.3 per cent of the GDP on the education sector, but it was expecting that everybody must have graduated.

Attorney-General Makhdoom Ali Khan contended that in the existence of two Proclamations of Emergency issued under Article 232, no such petition could be filed. He argued that the operation of Article 17 was suspended under these proclamations.

Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui observed that the petitions were not only based on Article 17 but also on other articles. He said the graduates in the urban areas might be in abundance but this was not the case with rural areas.

The AG replied that there was no government survey about the number of graduates in the country, but an NGO had conducted some exercise showing there was no dearth of educated candidates.

The AG stated that the right to contest an election was not a fundamental right, and under Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution, qualifications and disqualifications for the member of parliament and provincial assemblies have been enumerated. He said that Article 62(i) specifically provided that more qualifications could be added to the existing list of qualifications.

The AG said Articles 62 and 63 acknowledged that contesting election was a statutory right of the citizens and could be regulated.

Justice Iftikhar inquired if the government had the right to tell the voters whom they should vote for? The AG referred to Article 62 and 63 which provided about 30 qualifications and disqualifications.

The AG argued that the law would motivate those aspiring to adopt politics as career to acquire education. He said it was common experience that acquiring education for richer families was less incentive and added that most of the legislators who came from the affluent families, were less educated.

He said the record of the National Assembly and Senate showed that all the members carrying the tag of Nawab, Nawabzada and Sardar were less educated.

Justice Siddiqui inquired if the level of competence, which the government wanted to achieve, was possible to achieve overnight. The AG stated it was the beginning.

The AG said he was not arguing that the educated lot would not indulge in such activities as corruption as was the case with the members of the previous assemblies. But, he added, it was an attempt to improve the system.

The AG stated that the Supreme Court of India, in one of its recent judgment, had required the Indian election commission to ask the candidate to furnish complete details about them.

Justice Iftikhar observed that it could be introduced gradually, and referred to the quota system which was eliminated gradually.

The Advocate-General of Punjab, Maqbool Elahi Malik, had started the arguments when the court rose to assemble on Thursday.