فیصلے میں کہا گیا کہ 62 ون ایف کی تشریح عدالتی ڈیکلریشن کےذریعے آئین کو "ریڈ ان" کرنا ہے، ڈیکلریشن دینے کے حوالے سے قانون کا کوئی پراسیس موجود نہیں۔
تحریری فیصلہ 7 صفحات پر مشتمل ہے، جو چیف جسٹس قاضی فائز عیسیٰ نے تحریر کیا۔
فیصلے میں کہا گیا کہ آرٹیکل 62 ون ایف کے تحت تاحیات نااہلی کا تصور بنیادی حقوق کی شقوں سے ہم آہنگ نہیں، آرٹیکل 62 ون ایف کے تحت تاحیات نااہلی انتخابات لڑنے اور عوام کے ووٹ کے حق سے متصادم ہے، جب تک آرٹیکل 62 ون ایف سے متعلق قانون سازی نہیں ہو جاتی اسے آرٹیکل 62 ون ڈی، ای ،جی کی طرح ہی پڑھا جائے۔
تحریری فیصلے میں کہا گیا کہ سپریم کورٹ کا سمیع اللّٰہ بلوچ کیس کا فیصلہ مسترد کیا جاتا ہے، سپریم کورٹ نے سمیع اللّٰہ بلوچ کیس میں تاحیات نااہلی کی ڈیکلریشن دے کر آئین بدلنے کی کوشش کی، الیکشن ایکٹ میں سیکشن 232 شق 2 شامل کرکے نااہلی کی مدت 5 سال کی گئی۔
جسٹس یحییٰ آفریدی نے فیصلے سے اختلاف کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ 62 ون ایف کے تحت نااہلی تاحیات بھی نہیں ہے، نااہلی عدالتی فیصلہ موجود ہونے تک ہے، سمیع اللّٰہ بلوچ فیصلہ درست تھا۔
چیف جسٹس قاضی فائز عیسیٰ کی سربراہی میں 7 رکنی بینچ نے معاملے کی سماعت کی، جسٹس منصور علی شاہ، جسٹس یحییٰ آفریدی، جسٹس امین الدین خان شامل تھے، جسٹس جمال مندوخیل، جسٹس محمد علی مظہر اور جسٹس مسرت ہلالی بھی 7 رکنی لارجر بینچ کا حصہ تھے۔
ORDER OF THE COURT
-----------------------------------
For the reasons to be recorded later and subject to amplifications and explanations made therein, by a majority of 6 to 1 (Yahya Afridi, J. dissenting), it is decided and declared that:
i. Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (“Constitution”) is not a self-executory provision as it does not by itself specify the court of law that is to make the declaration mentioned therein nor does it provide for any procedure for making, and any period for disqualification incurred by, such declaration.
ii. There is no law that provides for the procedure, process and the identification of the court of law for making the declaration mentioned in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and the duration of such a declaration, for the purpose of disqualification thereunder, to meet the requirements of the Fundamental Right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed by Article 10A of the Constitution.
iii. The interpretation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution in imposing a lifetime disqualification upon a person through an implied declaration of a court of civil jurisdiction while adjudicating upon some civil rights and obligations of the parties is beyond the scope of the said Article and amounts to reading into the Constitution.
iv. Such reading into the Constitution is also against the principle of harmonious interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution as it abridges the Fundamental Right of citizens to contest elections and vote for a candidate of their choice enshrined in Article 17 of the Constitution, in the absence of reasonable restrictions imposed by law.
v. Until a law is enacted to make its provisions executory, Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution stands on a similar footing as Article 62(1)(d), (e) and (g), and serves as a guideline for the voters in exercising their right to vote.
vi. The view taken in Sami Ullah Baloch v Abdul Karim Nausherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405) treating the declaration made by a court of civil jurisdiction regarding breach of certain civil rights and obligations as a declaration mentioned in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and making such declaration to have a lifelong disqualifying effect amounts to reading into the Constitution and is therefore overruled.
vii. Section 232(2) added in the Elections Act, 2017, vide the Elections (Amendment) Act, 2023 promulgated on 26 June 2023, prescribes a period of five years for the disqualification incurred by any judgment, order or decree of any court in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and has also made such declaration subject to the due process of law. This provision is already in field, and there remains no need to examine its validity and scope in the present case.
Yahya Afridi, J. -
------------------------------
With profound respect, I disagree. For reasons to follow, the extent of lack of qualification of a member of the Parliament, as envisaged under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is neither lifelong nor permanent, and the same shall remain effective only during the period the declaration so made by a Court of law remains in force. Therefore, the conclusion so drawn by this Court in Sami Ullah Baloch Versus Abdul Karim Nousherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405) is legally valid, hence affirmed.
C.A.982/2018
Hamza Rasheed Khan v. Election Appellate Tribunal, Lahore High Court, Lahore & others Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa
08-01-2024
0 Comments