The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Qazi Faiz Isa, presided over a 7-member bench hearing a case regarding lifetime disqualification of politicians. The proceedings, broadcasted live on the Supreme Court website, highlighted discussions on constitutional rights and historical context.
During the session, Jahangir Tareen’s lawyer, Makhdoom Ali Khan, initiated arguments. Chief Justice Isa emphasized upcoming hearings on individual disqualification cases, underscoring the focus on legal and constitutional issues presently.
Various justices raised pertinent queries. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned the origin of disqualification declarations, while Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar queried the timing of applying Articles 62 and 63. Chief Justice Isa stressed a holistic view of the constitution, urging consideration of fundamental rights and historical precedence.
Addressing disparities in punishments, Chief Justice Isa highlighted discrepancies between severe penalties for minor errors in nomination papers and leniency in other serious offenses. Makhdoom Ali Khan referenced the merger of Articles 62 and 63 in 1985, emphasizing their interdependence.
Discussions extended to the authority of civil courts in declaring disqualifications, with emphasis on distinguishing eligibility and ineligibility criteria. Justices probed possibilities of legislative intervention in fixing the duration of disqualifications.
The bench deliberated on interpreting constitutional provisions, particularly on disqualifications, suggesting the need for clarity and simplicity in legal frameworks without losing public trust. Some justices advocated for letting constituents decide on representatives’ integrity.
The court contemplated its jurisdiction in altering legislative clauses and the effect of past declarations on future elections. Lawyers highlighted the court’s role in reviewing past declarations and the finality of litigated cases.
Overall, the session emphasized the complexities of disqualification laws, the significance of constitutional interpretation, and the necessity of aligning legal processes with public confidence.
