An unlawful ploy of disqualification.

Part 1 of this series about the disAqualification verdict announced by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in the Toshakhana refAerence against the former prime minister Imran Khan concludAed that 'not to speak of the ECP verdict (dated 21-10-2022) declaring Imran disqualified, even the reference itself is illeAgal, unlawful, incompetent and without lawful authority. For beAing mala fide and devoid of force and made also in violation of the Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution, the verdict should be declared null and void.'

Now, a petition has been filed in the LaAhore High Court (LHC) challenging the relevant section of the Election Act, 2017 (the Act) under which the PTI chief was disqualified. LHC Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi last Monday issued notices to auAthorities concerned, besides seeking legal assistance from Advocate General Punjab (AGP) Ahmed Awais on the writ petition. The ECP order, which interprets Section(s) 137, 167, 173, 174, 190, and 232 of the Act is arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisAdiction. It comes as a big blow to the parAty which a few days before the verdict was announced had won big in by-polls across the country indicating public support for the ousted former premier.

The written ruling says the respondent (Imran Khan) had 'intentionally and deAliberately' violated the provisions conAtained [in] sections 137, 167, and 173 of the Act as he 'has made a false statement and incorrect declaration before the Commission in the statement of assets and liabilities filed by him for the year 2020-21'. Hence, he attracts disqualifiAcation under Article 63(1)(p) of the ConAstitution read with sections 137 and 173 of the Elections Act, 2017.'

On the other side, Article 63 (1) (p) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution), states that an individual is, 'for the time being, disAqualified from being elected or chosen as a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (ParliaAment) or of a provincial assembly under any law for the time being in force'. The language of Article 63(1)(g) and 63(1)(h) of the Constitution prove it a hollow verdict as ECP is not a court of law. Left to the even more limited parameters of Article 63 of the Constitution, ECP's deAcision can only be justified as part of the absurd sequence of events rather than any concrete reasoning of law.

Article 63(1) of the Constitution reads: 'A person shall be disqualified from beAing elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the...