ISLAMABAD: The controversial implementation of the Articles 62, 63 by the judiciary is the consequence of parliament’s failure to evolve a proper legal mechanism for the enforcement of these critically important constitutional provisions. These constitutional provisions were made part of the basic legal framework of the country to ensure that only men of good character are allowed to contest the polls.
However, despite the lapse of over 40 years, these constitutional provisions remain mostly dormant because of the reason that parliament and the political parties have never been serious to implement the Articles 62, 63.
Interestingly, the Election Commission of Pakistan as well as the Supreme Court of Pakistan also failed to play their role in helping formulating a proper legal mechanism whereby those aspiring to become member of parliament could be duly assessed as per the spirit of the Articles 62, 63.
Before the 2013 elections, there has been an effort made by the then ECP secretary to introduce the much-needed reforms aimed at implementing the constitutional scheme which envisages that only men of good character should be allowed to contest the polls. But it could not done in absence of support from different stakeholders.
The issues like working out a mechanism to implement Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution in their true spirit and the setting up of an institutionalised system to do the scrutiny of the annual asset declaration of the MPs was discussed, but it could not happen.
The Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution provide for set of qualifications and disqualifications for the members of the National Assembly, Senate and provincial assemblies, but these provisions remained dormant as parliament as well as the ECP failed to evolve a mechanism to implement these provisions.
Prior to 2013 elections, the ECP had even sought 30-days scrutiny period for nomination papers, but the then parliament with the support of both the government and opposition benches killed the proposal.
The latest disqualification of former Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and PTI’s Fawad Chaudhry for life by the election tribunals invited criticism. These disqualifications were made after a summary trial and in the absence of legal mechanism to implement Articles 62 and 63. The election tribunal orders could be flawed but instead of judges and the judiciary, the politicians and parliament are responsible for their failure to legislate a proper legal procedure for the enforcement of Articles 62 and 63.
In the case of Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification, there was an argument that the apex court should avoid disqualifying a person in the absence of any proper trial by a trial court. In principle, this is right, but parliament did never specify this in any law made for the implementation of Articles 62 and 63.
Surprisingly, politicians and political parties, particularly the PPP and the PML-N whose leaders were hit by Articles 62 and 63, instead of bringing in a mechanism for the implementation of these constitutional provisions seek the deletions of the “trouble making” constitutional provision.