ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Friday filed an appeal against the SC Registrar office objections on its constitutional petition against the permanent disqualification of parliamentarians under Article 62(1)f of the Constitution.

The SC Registrar’s office, earlier this month, had returned the SCBA constitution petition by raising several objections. The Registrar office stated that the matter has already been settled by five judges of a larger bench. Likewise, the objection was also raised on the locus standi of the petitioner.

The SCBA on January 11, 2022 filed a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution through its President Ahsan Bhoon and arrayed the federation as the respondent because the constitutional questions involve.

The SCBA has urged the Court to hold that the declaration under Article 62(1)(f) does not entail a perpetual/lifetime bar. It further prayed to declare that the proceedings/declarations under Articles 184(3) or 199 of the Constitution do not constitute declarations by a court of law, as per the principles expounded by the apex court.

The SCBA chief submitted that the Supreme Court has a duty to preserve and protect fundamental rights.

However, reading in a lifetime disqualification into Article 62(1)(f) has had the opposite effect on rights under Article 10-A, without a clear reasoning to that effect. He stated that as there is no mention of disqualification being permanent or indefinite under Article 62(1)(f), hence, the same cannot be presumed.

The SCBA chief submitted that had the Parliament intended to give perpetuity to a declaration under Article 62(1)(f), it would have stated so by inserting specific language to this effect. He further submitted that this Court has incorrectly read lifetime disqualification into Article 62(1)(f) in Abdul Ghafoor Lehri, Sami Ullah Baloch, and all the other judgments.

The petitioner stated that from the Supreme Court judgment in Roshan Ali Buriro v Syed Murad Al Shah and others (2019 SCMR 1939) it becomes clear that for the disqualification to attain permanence, the declaration by a court of law referred to in Article 62(1)(f) must be given after the recording of evidence and cannot be given in summary or inquisitorial proceedings.

The petition said the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, exercises extraordinary and original constitutional jurisdiction. It does not act as a trial court where the person against whom a declaration under Article 62(1)(f) being sought is afforded the right to lead evidence, produce witnesses, cross-examine the other side’s witnesses and so on.

Therefore, the apex court and the high court exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, do not qualify as the “courts of law” who may give declarations under Article 62(1)(f).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022