ISLAMABAD. The Islamabad High Court on Wednesday admitted for hearing a petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s decision to disqualify PTI leader Faisal Vawda from parliament for a lifetime under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

The IHC reserved its judgement on the admissibility of the petition.

A three-member ECP bench headed by Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja on February 9 disqualified Vawda as a legislator for submitting a fake affidavit while filing his nomination papers for a National Assembly seat ahead of the 2018 elections. He was disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) – which relates to the lifetime disqualification of lawmakers and sets a precondition for a legislator to be ‘sadiq and ameen’ (honest and righteous). The commission declared that the PTI leader was not ‘sadiq and ameen’ anymore.

Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and estranged PTI leader Jahangir Tareen were also disqualified under the same provision in 2017, prompting the politicians and legal experts to mull over the law.

Vawda used the same lawto move the high court on Tuesday. The ruling party leader in his petition argued that the ECP “lacked jurisdiction” to invoke Article 62(1)(f) to disqualify him for life since it was not a court of law.

At the outset of the hearing, which was presided over by IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah on Wednesday, Vawda’s lawyer Waseem Sajjad contended that his client was disqualified by the ECP under a “fake affidavit.” He added that the commission also directed Vawda to return within two months the salary and other benefits he had received as a minister and parliamentarian.

Vawda, who also served as the water resources minister, on March 3, 2021, submitted his resignation from the lower house of parliament in the IHC, the lawyer said, adding that his client has resigned as an MNA and has also been disqualified as a Senator.

“The election commission is not a court of law. It does not have the jurisdiction to declare [his client] disqualified. It cannot announce verdict under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution,” Sajjad said.

IHC CJ Minallah said the affidavit was submitted under the ambit of the Supreme Court order. To this, the lawyer replied that the aforementioned document was submitted in June 2018.

“Are you talking on technical grounds, where has the election commission made any mistake,” the CJ asked, adding that the apex court itself issued an order and made the affidavit a part of it. The chief justice said the SC had “warned of serious consequences” if the affidavit turned out to be wrong.

The ECP could have sent the matter to the SC after conducting an inquiry into the matter, the chief justice said, adding: “you had said that there would be consequences if the affidavit turned out to be wrong and the five-member SC bench had also warned of a similar situation. Was the citizenship revoked before the filing of nomination papers?”

Lawyer Sajjad said that the ECP can conduct an inquiry into the affidavit, but asked about its process.

IHC CJ Minallah said the ECP should send the case to SC after conducting the inquiry. To this, the lawyer asked: “Is the court of law allowed to conduct proceedings if the affidavit turned out to be wrong after the inquiry?”

The CJ said the apex court decision also read that the false affidavit would be considered as it was “submitted” in the SC. “Should the SC conduct contempt of court proceedings on this [submission of the wrong affidavit]?,” he said, “Just explain [us] this bench what to do with the decision of the five-member bench of the Supreme Court.”

Lawyer Sajjad said the word contempt of court was not used in the SC judgement for a false affidavit.

IHC CJ Minallah said: “This decision of the Supreme Court is a law under which many legislators were also disqualified. Leaving aside this case, explain how the SC decision will be implemented. Did Faisal Vawda submit his certificate of renunciation of US citizenship? He would have proved his good intentions and present the certificate.”

He added that after the apex court decision, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to submit the certificate of renunciation of citizenship.

“Only the court of law has the power to disqualify. Nowhere did the petitioner produce a certificate of relinquishment of citizenship,” the lawyer said, “Lifetime disqualification is like capital punishment in politics.”

On this, IHC Chief Justice Minallah said: “This ‘capital punishment’ has been awarded to many politicians.”