ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar has observed that states not governed by honest and upright people are bound to suffer and lag behind developed nations of the world.
“Therefore,
it is of utmost importance that the state structure must be built upon
honesty of purpose by honest people,” he said in his 80-page judgement
about the disqualification of former secretary general of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Jahangir Khan Tareen as a legislator under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Mr
Tareen lost his National Assembly seat from Lodhran for his failure to
declare the 12-acre Hyde House in the United Kingdom in his nomination
papers and for making an untrue statement before the apex court that he
had no beneficial interest in the property.
The three-judge Supreme Court bench, however, cleared PTI chief Imran Khan of all charges.
In
the judgement, Chief Justice Nisar wrote that people should determine
whether or not the people in power were honest in general terms and
specifically as the chosen representatives of the people... because
honesty was one of the greatest virtues in a man.
The
judgement dealt at length with the sanctity of parliament and said it
should not be allowed to be compromised lightly because it was the
supreme lawmaking organ of the state.
“It is the supreme
body to lay down the state policies; besides, the executive body of the
state is also derived from this organ. Though the validity of
legislative enactments of parliament and the executive actions of the
administration are subject to judicial review of the superior courts,
this power should be exercised within the limits provided by the
Constitution, as interpreted by the courts and various principles of law
enunciated in this behalf,” the verdict said.
“The quo
warranto remedy,” the judgement said, “should not be allowed to be a
tool in the hands of those who approach the court with mala fide
intentions and either have their own personal grudges and scores to
settle with the holder of the public office or are a proxy for someone
else who has a similar object or motive.
“This remedy
surely cannot be allowed to serve as a sword hanging over the heads of
the parliamentarians or members of the provincial assemblies who are the
chosen representatives of the people under the mandate of the
Constitution (Article 2A) wherein it is stated that state should
exercise its power and authority through chosen representatives of the
people.”
“Thus relief sought through petitions of quo
warranto,” the verdict said, “should not be allowed to be resorted to
for demeaning, intimidating and causing undue harassment to the
parliamentarians.”
It should not be allowed to be used
as a pressure tactic for purposes of restraining them from performing
their functions and discharging their duties in accordance with the
Constitution and the law, said the judgement.
“This
remedy of quo warranto,” said the verdict, “cannot be equated with the
challenge to the holder of any other public office, where the
appointment was assailed as not having been made according to the law
regarding his qualifications on the basis of political considerations or
nepotism.”
In his judgement, the chief justice said the
courts should not lose sight of the fact that parliamentarians were the
elected representatives of the people and had come to the parliament
through a democratic process.
“Democracy is one of the
basic features of the Constitution and the courts, being the guardians
and custodians of the Constitution, are obliged to protect and safeguard
the same,” the chief justice wrote.
“This remedy should
not be allowed as a matter of course, more so when the candidature of a
candidate is duly scrutinised at the time of the scrutiny of his/her
nomination papers to ascertain whether he is qualified or disqualified
in terms of the Constitution and the law,” the judgement said.
Moreover
the election of the parliamentarian could only be challenged if he
lacked qualification or disqualification before the election tribunal in
accordance with the procedure provided by the Representation of People
Act, 1976.
“We are clear in our mind that quo warranto
writ can only be issued by the court against the parliamentarians in
exceptional cases.”
