The Lahore High Court on Friday banned ROs from asking irrelevant questions, putting an end to the controversial scrutiny process. However, it shows no party had asked why such strict subjective implementation of Articles 62 and 63 was done.

“The cameras were a menace. They zoomed in on each of the nomination forms, all in the presence of the returning officers (ROs). And the ROs seemed to be enjoying the media’s attention,” says Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Chairman of the Awami Muslim League, while narrating his experience on the filing of nomination forms.

“It was normal for me. After all, I was spared the questions others had been grilled upon,” he continues. “But the whole process has changed from what I remember it as from my earlier runs in elections.”

Sheikh Rashid said the nomination papers were much more difficult compared to the previous ones, as candidates were required to file all the records of the previous financial year, including travel costs.

“They asked us about our current financial records as well,” he complained.

According to Sheikh Rashid, keeping a tab on travel expenses, and having to appear in front of the RO several times (Sheikh Rashid had to appear three times himself) proved to be a great hassle for candidates, and an enormous inconvenience for several politicians.

None of the politicians seemed to wonder why the scrutiny process was different this time around. Nobody asked: What had led to strict scrutiny of the candidates, and why had this not occurred before?

The questions

Several candidates throughout the country faced questions regarding Islam and the ideology of Pakistan—both of which were supposed to test their compliance with Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.

Article 62 of the constitution lays down the qualifications for membership of the Parliament. It states that to be qualified, a person has to be sagacious, honest and ameen, and must have basic knowledge of the Islamic teachings. Furthermore, he or she must not be involved in any activity which is deemed against the integrity of Pakistan.

Similarly, article 63 lays down the conditions under which a person may be disqualified from the membership of Parliament. A dual national, a convict, a holder of public office, or a loan defaulter may be disqualified from the membership of the Parliament.

“But it is impossible to check whether a person fits these requirements, as the terms remain ambiguous,” says Salman Akram Raja, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court.  “And the methods being employed by the ROs mock the whole process.”

“The ROs are using a subjective perception of right and wrong, as they ask impertinent questions,” he says. “This reflects the neurotic anxiety of our society which is unable to come to terms with the modern world, thanks to a conservative state education,” he adds.

The stricter process included tougher questions to the candidates who had been asked to appear in person before the returning officers. These questions were supposed to test knowledge of Islam and Pakistan, and candidates were asked to, among others:

l Name the Islamic months l Recite the Kalimas l Recite Dua-i-Qanoot l Recite Azan-i-Fajr l Explain the Islamic method of washing a dead body l Promise to pray five times a day l Recite the national anthem l Name the author of the national anthem

The question of why the strict implementation of Article 62 and 63 was being done this time however remains unanswered, as parties focused on the current scrutiny process instead of thinking about the reason behind it.

Political party pesponse

The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) had been demanding for better scrutiny of the candidates aspiring for a National Assembly or Provincial Assembly seat. But, does the PTI think that the scrutiny process was better this time?

When the PTI spokesman, Shafqat Mehmood, was asked, he said, “It is demeaning to create a recreational atmosphere, and mock the likely representatives of the people in front of the camera.”

“They (the ROs) are mocking the candidates, and are jeopardising a genuine process,” said Mehmood.

According to him, the ROs needed to sift through the records presented by the National Accountability Bureau, Federal Board of Revenue and the Election Commission of Pakistan to determine whether a person was eligible to contest the elections, instead of asking questions related to Islam in a derogatory manner.

Mushahidullah Khan, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Information Secretary, was of the same view. He said there was no harm in going through the financial and criminal records of an individual, but it was unfair to ask irrelevant questions which did not prove whether a person was a good Muslim or not.

“If I don’t know the third Kalima, does it mean that I am a bad Muslim?” he asked.

Mushahidullah added that the Lahore High Court order on Friday, which had barred the ROs from asking irrelevant questions, was greatly welcomed.

However, the court had been too late, as the process had already been made a mockery of.

According to the PML-N Information Secretary, a thorough scrutiny of one’s financial records, degrees and criminal records was enough, and there was no need to ask questions which were irrelevant or mocked the candidates.

When asked why a strict implementation of the Article 62 and 63 being carried out this time, Mushahidullah Khan said undemocratic forces were trying to show their power and role in the process, but due to the freedom of the judiciary and the media, they were failing.

Veteran journalist I.A. Rehman also said the reason why candidates were being publicly mocked was because anti-democratic forces were at play.

“The coming of Tahirul Qadri or others has nothing to do with the process. They are mere excuses to show that the scrutiny process is being followed as per Articles 62 and 63,” he said.

He said the ROs could not judge whether a person was anti-Pakistan merely based on the writings (a reference to Ayaz Amir).

He added that under Article 63, only a person who had been convicted or declared mentally challenged by the court could be barred from contesting the elections.

“The ROs do not have the authority to decide subjectively,” he said.

Political parties remain quiet on articles 62 and 63

Another important aspect of the scrutiny process, which seemed to be overlooked by many politicians, is why the previous governments had failed to amend the Articles 62/63 when they knew it had ambiguous clauses.

“What really disappoints me is that the two parties, the Pakistan People’s Party and PML-N, have been in power for the past five years, and if they could pass the 18th 19th and 20th amendment, they could have also amended Articles 62 and 63. The removal of ambiguous clauses from these articles would have made the process a lot easier,” said PTI’s Shafqat Mehmood.

A senior PML-N leader, when contacted, said both the PML-N and the PPP had proposed amendments to Articles 62 and 63 prior to the 18th amendment, but religious parties, including the Jamaat-i-Islami and Jamiat Ulama-i-Islam (JUI-F) had opposed the move, claiming it to be un-Islamic. Thus the ambiguity in these clauses remains till date.

“We needed the consensus of these parties for the success of the 18th amendment, and so we decided to drop the proposal,” he added.