Islamabad:
Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI) seems to be increasingly under legal siege as a growing number of its lawmakers face disqualification on various charges, how many arise from May 9-related cases.
The wave of disqualifications has caused concern among legal experts who claim that the process can bypass constitutional procedures and erod democratic norms.
Although not unprecedented, the disqualifications bypass the route laid down in Article 225 of the Constitution, which states that no choice of the national or provincial assembly can be challenged except through an election petition submitted for a right of suffrage.
Since the restoration of judges in March 2009, legislators have been unspoken by the overall court – especially the Supreme Court under the former Chief Justice IFTIKHAR Muhammad Chaudhry – due to having false degrees and double nationalities. Even former Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was shown the door in a contempt case.
During the term of office of former Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, a number of PML-N legislators also faced disqualification. In particular, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified in accordance with Article 62 (2) of the Constitution. 1 (f). Then PML-N leaders Nehal Hashmi, Talal Chaudhry and Daniyal Aziz were disqualified in contempt.
Two PML-N senators were also seated to have double nationalities at the time of filing their nomination papers.
Now it’s PTI’s turn in the hot seat. So far, four PTI legislators – two MNAs, a senator and an MPa – have been disqualified due to convictions in connection with the riots on May 9.
PTI founder Imran Khan himself was convicted in three separate cases before the general election in 2024, which effectively prevented him from contesting the polls. Recently, PTI chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan expressed concern that up to 39 more legislators could be subjected to disability over similar charges in the coming months.
The Election Commission in Pakistan (ECP) has also jumped into the crisis. When he acts on references sent by the National Assembly’s speeches, it has begun the process of effortless PTI MNAs.
Most recently, Ptis Jamshed Dasti was disqualified by ECP for not revealing assets in his nomination papers. The Commission is now reviewing the eligibility of the opposition leader in Na, Omar Ayub.
During the term of office of the former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, ECP was allowed to implement reports in three constituencies, which led to de-seat with two PTI legislators.
‘Too Early Movement’
Previously further lawyer Waqar Rana criticized the ECP’s steps as too early. “The most appropriate interpretation of Article 63 (1) (g) is that the Election Commission cannot do so on its own after a member has decreased office.”
He argued that only after a referral from the speaker can be such a member who is disqualified and that also in the conviction is maintained by the highest court.
“Indira Gandhi was disqualified by the court, but under appeal was suspended by the Indian Supreme Court in 1975, and she continued to act as both a member and prime minister,” he pointed out.
Waqar Rana asked a question: If the conviction under appeal is set aside, how can you disqualify a person? The second question is: How has ECP assumed that beliefs will be maintained in appeal?
“It’s tragic that the ECP continues to undermine the democratic process,” he added.
Another lawyer noted that Article 225 of the Constitution has become superfluous and added that only the right to vote has jurisdiction to take such questions.
Previously, parliamentarians belonging to PPP and PML-N were sent home through superior courts in the pursuit of Quo Warranto Jurisdiction. Now the same is done with PTI legislators of ECP without conducting a lawsuit.
Likewise, PTI lawyer Abuzar Salman Niazi said that beliefs about several PTI legislators of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Sargodha, have been handed down by a court in the first instance and have not yet achieved finality.
It is firmly law that an appeal constitutes a continuation of the trial and that the judgment of a lawsuit will not be final until all appeals are exhausted.
In the Federation of Pakistan against Gul Hameed Khan (PLD 1975 SC 254), the Supreme Court ruled that “the appeal process is an integral part of the justice administration and a judgment in a trial that is tentative until the end of appeals”.
“Therefore, any action taken against PTI legislators before the disposal of their appeals would be premature and legally unsustainable.”
Niazi said that the ECP’s notification of incompatibility issued before final judgment constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and proper process laid down in accordance with Article 10a of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the ECP’s lack of legislators is an opportunity to hear before issuing disqualification messages, a serious breach of procedural justice.
“Article 10a guarantees the right to a fair trial, and the principle of Audi Alteram Partem – that no persons should be condemned – is a cornerstone of the administrative and legal procedure. In Asad Ali Khan against the Province of Punjab (PLD 1986 SC 383), the court emphasized that” the right to be heard is a significant part of the principle of natural righteousness and must be adhered to by any. transferred. “
“The denial of such consultation rights makes the action of the ECP not only illegal but constitutional. Moreover, these beliefs do not fall within the Constitution in Article 63 of the Constitution; therefore, the procedure followed by the ECP reflects an obvious wrong reading and incorrect application of the law.”
Eventually, he added that ECP’s selective enforcement of court decisions raises serious concerns about its impartiality and obligation to the rule of law.
While the ECP quickly traded to implement the court’s decision against PTI legislators, it has failed to enforce the binding judgment of the Supreme Court’s largest bench regarding reserved seats for over a year.
He argued that such selective and inconsistent behavior undermines public confidence in the institution and violates the principle of equality before the law as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
“As held in Justice Qazi Faez Isa against the Federation of Pakistan (SCMR 1272) 2014), the holiness of constitutional bodies depends on their neutrality, justice and compliance with the rule of law.” The current behavior that the ECP does not fall according to these constitutional expectations and requires immediate justice, ”he added.
A Lahore High Court three-judge bench will take the dasti discvalification case today (Wednesday).
Meanwhile, May 9-related litigation is accelerated to a Supreme Court Directive requiring the end of all such procedures within four months.
Legal observers claim that the courts have often allowed powerful circles to shape political results by quick tracking attempts against selected parties-first PML-N under the Panama Papers case, and now PTI in May 9 cases.
Once, the pointed right ordered the neighboring procedures against the Sharif family; Now the same court, under CJP Yahya Afridi, has ordered ATCs to end May 9 -attempts within a similar tight deadline.
