Qualification for Membership of Parliament

2019 SCMR 1939 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 62(1)(f), 63(1)(c) & 199Qualification for Membership of ParliamentDual nationalityConstitutional petition before High Court under Art. 199 of the ConstitutionMaintainability

Petitioner was political opponent of respondent and was aggrieved of order passed by High Court setting aside disqualification of respondent for being a "dual national"

Validity

Petitioner had switched over his proceedings from remedies under Elections Act, 2017 to a Constitutional petition before High Court

Such was a serious defect but could be justified for seeking a decree by a court of law that had met requirements of Art. 62(1)(f) of the Constitution

Constitutional petition filed by petitioner was actuated by personal political rivalry and not by public interest and thus lacked bona fide of petitioner

Constitutional petition filed before High Court, therefore, was not maintainable

No evidence was recorded by Returning Officer to sustain his findings nor he recorded reasons for invoking disqualification under Art. 62(1)(f) of the Constitution

Returning Officer was not a court of law but a statutory forum of limited jurisdiction

Condition that only a court of law could issue declaration of disqualification under Art. 62(1)(f) of the Constitution was not met

Election Tribunal did not declare respondent, directly or indirectly, to lack any qualities mentioned in Art. 62(1)(f) of the Constitution

No finding in terms of wrongs so identified in order of Returning Officer was recorded

Order passed by Returning Officer was ineffective to impose a disqualification under Art. 62(1)(f) of Constitution

Respondent did not suffer from lifetime bar under Art. 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and he was eligible to contest general elections of 2018

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 PLD 97 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 62(1)(f)Qualification for membership of ParliamentSagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and amen

Person who was untruthful or dishonest or profligate had no place in discharging the noble task of law making and administering the affairs of State in government office

Such faults in character or disposition, if duly established, could not be treated as transient for the purpose of reposing trust and faith of the electorate and the Constitution in the holder of an elected office under the Constitution

Trusteeship attendant upon the discharge of every public office under the Constitution, whether Legislative, Executive or Judicial was a universally recognized norm, however, Constitution (of Pakistan) emphasized upon it expressly for an elected parliamentary office

Such Constitutional norm must be respected and therefore implemented.

2014 SCMR 98 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 62(1)(f)Qualification for Membership of ParliamentEducational degreeGenuineness of "O" and "A" level educational testimonials of elected representative had not been verified

Supreme Court, in order to do complete justice, directed Higher Education Commission to conduct such exercise, whereafter the Court would proceed further.