Search
Politics

Supreme Court ends lifetime disqualification

Optimum Tech

Jan 08

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday overturned the lifetime disqualification of lawmakers, rescinding its previous order that barred politicians from seeking office indefinitely.

The decision came during the hearing of a case presented by former PML-N provincial member Sardar Meer Badshah Khan Qaisrani. The top court identified inconsistencies between the Election Act of 2017 and a previous Supreme Court ruling regarding the duration of disqualification.

The Supreme Court declared that no person can be barred for a lifetime from running in elections if they are disqualified under Article 62 (1)(f), setting aside its landmark judgment in the Samiullah Baloch case.

Order of the court. https://t.co/db3tNhFhvK pic.twitter.com/HnbEmNXvyn

— Hasnaat Malik (@HasnaatMalik) January 8, 2024

Sardar Meer Badshah Khan Qaisrani had filed a petition in 2007 challenging his lifetime disqualification over allegations related to a fake degree.

Chief Justice of Pakistan, Qazi Faez Isa, announced that the Supreme Court aims to conclude proceedings on the lifetime disqualification case by January 4 (Thursday). This crucial decision will determine whether the amendment to the Election Act 2017 aligns with Article 62(1)(F) and establish whether lawmakers’ disqualification from contesting polls should be lifelong or limited to five years.

The seven-member larger bench, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and consisting of Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Yahya Afridi, Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Musarrat Hilali, deliberated on the matter of lifetime disqualification for lawmakers during today’s proceedings.

The apex court acknowledged the contradiction in the Election Act of 2017 and the earlier Supreme Court verdict and took this step after careful consideration. The decision marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the length of disqualification for politicians and its alignment with constitutional provisions.

Related


Read more