SC likely to interpret three provisions of Article 62

ISLAMABAD: At least three qualifications spelt out in Article 62 of the Constitution for the membership of Parliament are sweeping but vague and require authoritative interpretation by the superior judiciary to set a precedent for all others to follow.

One view is that these clauses were deliberately kept unclear, imprecise and indefinite to achieve certain results by those who inserted them in the Constitution. They were introduced by General Ziaul Haq when he kept altering the basic document during his military rule. All these changes were later incorporated in the Constitution through the eighth amendment. The subsequent regimes did not pick up the courage to change these particular provisions.

One condition is that a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as an MP unless he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and Ameen (truthful), there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law.

Under this provision, a declaration by a court that the concerned person doesn’t possess these prerequisites has to be available to banish a person from contesting an election to a public office. A mere accusation that he doesn’t have these qualities is inconsequential.

In one of its judgments, the Supreme Court aptly observed that only prophets can have all these virtues. The words “sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and Ameen” are too wide-ranging, entailing comprehensive meanings, which need precise elucidation and elaboration by the highest court.

The qualifications of being “sadiq” and ‘ameen’ have often been hammered by top politicians in their rhetorical statements against their rivals. However, they have been unable to establish their allegations in any court of law.

The second condition is that a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as an MP unless he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins.

The benchmark of “adequate knowledge” may vary from person to person and is set by the one who conducts a test of such understanding of the concerned man or woman. This clause is also very inclusive and widespread, and needs interpretation to set the standards for such knowledge.

The third qualification is that a contestant is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic injunctions.

Instances are galore in the Pakistani society to show that a person, who doesn’t even possess a good character, can easily secure a ‘good character’ certificate and get it authenticated by the relevant authority to produce it where it was demanded.

The other qualifications enumerated in Article 62 are not complicated. Their wordings make their meanings clear. They are that a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as an MP unless he is a citizen of Pakistan; he is, in case of the National Assembly, not less than twenty-five years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any electoral roll in any part of Pakistan, for election to a general seat or a seat reserved for non-Muslims and any area in a province from which she seeks membership for election to a seat reserved for women; he is, in the case of the Senate, not less than thirty years of age and is enrolled as a voter in any area in a province or, as the case may be, the federal capital or the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, from where he seeks membership; and he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against its integrity or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.

Since the qualifications of being sadiq and ameen have been raised by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in the Supreme Court against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the offshore companies and London apartments’ case, it is likely that the highest judicial forum will interpret these terms once and for all that all other courts will follow in future.

PTI lawyer Naeem Bokhari spent a considerable time to assert that the premier doesn’t meet these qualifications. On the other hand, Nawaz Sharif’s attorney Makhdoom Ali Khan has advanced arguments against his views.

Compared to the qualifications, the disqualifications for an MP, listed in Article 63, are too many.