ISLAMABAD (APP): Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday termed Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution a draconian law.
The CJP made these remarks while heading a three-member bench which heard Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Faisal Vawda’s appeal against lifetime disqualification. Vawda had challenged his lifelong disqualification by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the subsequent ruling by the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
During the course of proceedings, the Chief Justice said Article 62(1)(f) was a draconian law, therefore the court would hear the case with utmost care. Advocate Waseem Sajjad, counsel for Faisal Vawda said his client had contested elections in 2018 and two years later a disqualification petition was filed in the high court for submitting a false affidavit.
The CJP said ECP had rightly reviewed the case as it has the right to investigate a false affidavit. Even if the SC declared the lifetime disqualification orders illegal, the facts would remain the same, he added. Advocate Farooq H Naek said the IHC had clearly stated in its judgment that Faisal Vawda had accepted dual citizenship. The Chief Justice raised the question whether the ECP could issue orders for lifetime disqualification or not. Subsequently, hearing of the case was adjourned till October 6.
Meanwhlie, the Supreme Court decided to hear a petition of Pakistan Tehreek-e-insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan against amendments in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law on daily basis.
A three-member SC bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah heard the case. During the course of proceedings, CJP Bandial asked Khawaja Haris, counsel for Imran Khan, how the recent amendments had made the NAB law ineffective and how the same were violation of basic human rights.
Khawaja Haris relied said that several corruption cases were withdrawn after the amendments in several clauses, which had given relaxation to the government officials. The chief justice observed that neither NAB nor the Federal Government had submitted their responses in the case so far. Justice Ijaz said NAB had verbally stated that it would adopt the arguments of the attorney general. The chief justice said the court would to see if the new law violated the Constitution and fundamental rights. Later, the court adjourned the case till Wednesday.
