Pakistan Case LawSardar Confucius Imam Qasrani Versus Sardar Mir Badshah Khan Qaisarani and another
This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns proceedings addressing the constitutionality and legality of Section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017, alongside the issue of whether disqualification entails a lifetime ban. The Attorney-General for Pakistan and the Advocate-Generals of all provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory supported the statutory provision's validity, a position largely aligned with by most appearing counsel, while certain petitioners' counsel contended for a lifetime ban. Given the profound constitutional importance of the issue, the Court directed counsel appearing via video-link to attend in person at Islamabad for proper consideration of arguments. Additionally, the Court appointed amici curiae to submit written briefs and assist in adjudicating the constitutional and legal validity of the subject provision. The Court did not settle the substantive legal questions in this interim order, instead adjourning the proceedings to 4 January 2024 for full hearing and appointment of legal assistance.
- Whether amici curiae may be appointed by the Court to assist on questions regarding the constitutionality and legality of Section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017?
- Whether the Supreme Court may require counsel appearing via video-link to appear in person in matters of significant constitutional importance?
- Whether an opportunity must be granted to an unrepresented party to engage counsel or provide proper authorization to a representative during constitutional proceedings?
ORDER
The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan and the Advocate-Generals of all the provinces and Islamabad Capital Territory state that they support the constitutionality and legality of section 232(2) of the Elections Act, 2017. Most of the counsel representing appellants/applicants/petitioners support the contention of the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan and the Advocate-Generals for the Provinces and Islamabad Capital Territory, whereas, Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner in Civil Petition No. 2680/2023, Sh. Usman Karim-ud-Din, the learned counsel representing the petitioners in Civil Appeal No.984/2018 and Mr. Khurram Raza, the learned counsel representing the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 880/2015 canvass the contrary viewpoint, that is, a life time ban. Mr. Sanaullah Baloch states that he represents his brother, namely, Mr. Samiullah Baloch and supports the life time ban. Mr. Samiullah Baloch is granted an opportunity to engage counsel or to properly authorize his brother.
2.A number of counsel appear through video-link from other stations; they may attend the Court at Islamabad in view of the constitutional importance of the matter so that their submissions can be properly heard and understood.
3.We also welcome any senior counsel who wish to assist the Court on the constitutionality and legality of the matter in hand and appoint the following as amici: Learned Mr. Faisal Siddiqui, ASC, learned Mr. Uzair Karamat Bhandari, ASC and learned Ms. Reema Omer, Legal Advisor, International Commission of Jurists, who may submit their written briefs and/or render assistance in Court. To come up on Thursday, 4 January 2024 at 11.30 am.
Judges on this bench
- Amin-Ud-Din Khan1,272 judgments
- Syed Mansoor Ali Shah1,049 judgments
- Muhammad Ali Mazhar1,594 judgments