ISLAMABAD: A seven-member larger bench of the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday adjourned the hearing in the case pertaining to the lifetime disqualification of politicians under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution till January 4.
The larger bench, presided by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Amin ud Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, heard the case.
During the course of the proceedings, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan prayed the court to review the interpretation decision of Article 62(1)(f). He said that he would endorse the Election Act as it was made by the federation, the official news agency reported.
The advocate generals of all provinces, on the occasion, also supported the stance of the AGP. The bench was told that no one had challenged the amendment in the Election Act.
Petitioner Mir Badshah Qaisrani’s lawyer opposed the lifetime disqualification.
The Chief Justice said that the bench would try to conclude the hearing of the case on the next date. The further proceeding was then adjourned till January 4.
It may be mentioned here that the Supreme Court had taken notice of lifetime disqualification in a petition of former MPA Mir Badshah Qaisrani. It had also decided to hear all identical cases together.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a verdict of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) for the suspension of the returning officer of PK-91 Kohat constituency.
The court declared that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had replaced the RO of the constituency on solid grounds. The commission had not committed any illegal or unconstitutional act, it said.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, hearing the appeal of ECP, remarked that it seemed that some tactics were being used to stop the elections. He noted that the high court’s bench did not even bother to serve notices to respondents before suspending the RO.
The chief justice observed that the ECP appointed the new RO due to the ailment of the previous one. Whether the petitioner wanted to appoint an RO of his choice, he asked.
The court instructed the returning officer to continue the scrutiny of nomination papers of candidates in the constituency.
