Lawmakers' disqualification: Parliament can't reverse Supreme Court's verdict: lawyers

Parliament cannot undo the verdict of Supreme Court on Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution wherein it decided on Saturday that disqualification of a lawmaker under this article would be for lifetime, say leading lawyers of the apex court. Supreme Court has defined the ambiguity regarding duration of disqualification for a lawmaker in the constitution and this cannot be reversed through an Act of Parliament or any constitutional amendment.
The lawyers say that Parliament can legislate on the issue or even amend and remove the Article 62 and 63 but their applicability cannot be retrospective. Also, the Supreme Court has the right to interpret any new legislation regarding the issue if done in future. Advocate Supreme Court Aftab Ahmad Bajwa told Business Recorder that the duration issue of a lawmaker's disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) is settled once and for all by the Supreme Court.
"It is impossible now for Parliament to turn down judgment of the Supreme Court through legislation," he said, adding that the court has legal right to define ambiguity in the constitution and it has rightly done so in this case. "We are inclined to hold that incapacity created for failing to meet the qualifications under Article 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution imposes a permanent bar," reads the Supreme Court 52-page judgment handed down unanimously by five-member bench of the apex court.
Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Jahangir Khan Tareen among others have been disqualified from holding any public office for life as per the court's judgment. Senior lawyer Dr Farogh Naseem said it is the Supreme Court's right to interpret the constitution and it has done so in the wake of around 17 petitions filed on the matter regarding length of disqualification.
He said those disqualified from holding any public office do not have any legal recourse and the Parliament can not do anything on the issue now. "The ambiguity in the constitution regarding disqualification of the parliamentarians has been defined and cannot be reversed," he added. Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution reads: "A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law."
Articles 62 and 63 of the 1973 Constitution contain the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of Parliament. In 1985, during the dictatorship of General Zia-ul-Haq, Articles 62 and 63 were amended and five new clauses to the former and twelve new clauses to the latter were added. Requirements of personal character and reputation, including 'good character', 'adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings', 'sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen' and non-conviction of a crime involving 'moral turpitude' were added in the constitution.
Disqualifications were allowed on the grounds of propagating an opinion 'prejudicial to the Ideology of Pakistan' or being convicted of an offence involving 'moral turpitude.' Senior lawyer of the Supreme Court A K Dogar told Business Recorder that those judgments of the Supreme Court that have no right of appeal are repugnant to the teachings of Islam.
He said there are three judgments of the Supreme Court's Shariat Appellate Bench which clearly say that there must be a right of appeal against any judgment of the apex court. He added that the Supreme Court heard the petitions regarding Article 62(1)(f) under Article 184(3) of the Constitution that does not grant the right of appeal to any affected person. Dogar said the Supreme Court's verdict on the issue is final and Parliament cannot reverse it through legislation or any constitutional amendment.