Why doesn't the matter end once a person is punished? How can it be that after the punishment, he could never contest elections? Court
The Election Act has also been implemented and has not been challenged: Chief Justice of Pakistan's remarks during the hearing / screengrab

Islamabad: In the Supreme Court case related to lifelong disqualification of politicians under Article 62 One F, the court raised the question that once a person has been convicted, why does the matter not end? How can it be that after the punishment, he could never contest elections?

A 7-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faizisai is conducting the hearing, which also includes Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Mandukhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musrat Hilali.

At the beginning of the hearing, the Chief Justice asked what is your position, Attorney General? Should the Election Act be followed or the Supreme Court's decision? Given that the Election Act is a federal law, the Attorney General stated that the court should reconsider the decision to disqualify someone for life..

The Attorney General said that the decision to interpret lifelong disqualification under Article 62 One F should be re-examined.

Meanwhile, Saqib Jilani, the lawyer of the petitioner against Mirbadshah Qaisrani, also opposed the lifelong disqualification and said that I filed the application in 2018 when the decision of lifelong disqualification came under 621F, now Section 232 has been added to the Election Act, the Election Act. I am not following the plea to the extent of life-time disqualification under section 232.

The Chief Justice asked if anyone challenged the amendment of the Election Act. Do all Advocate Generals agree with the Attorney General's view, or do they disagree?

On the request of the Chief Justice, all the Advocate Generals supported the position of the Attorney General to amend the Election Act.

Chief Justice asked what is the difference between Article 62 and 63? On this, the Attorney General said that Article 62 is about eligibility of members, while Article 63 is related to disqualification, the period of disqualification is not mentioned in Article 62, but it was given by the court.

The Attorney General said that as long as there are judicial decisions, the declaration of lifelong disqualification is in place, on this Justice Qazi Faiz said that the Election Act has already been implemented and it has not been challenged.

In the meanwhile, Justice Mansoor posed the question of whether subconstitutional law may alter the constitution. Will the ruling of the Supreme Court need an amendment to the constitution? Is it possible for legislation to alter the provisions stated in the constitution? One can eventually run for office in cases of serious crimes like murder and treason, but does it seem right to permanently disqualify someone for minor offenses? Why doesn't the matter end once a person is punished? How can it happen that even after serving the sentence, he could never contest elections?

During the hearing, the Chief Justice said that the impression should not be taken from this case that the court is supporting a particular party, it is a constitutional issue which is going to be resolved once, efforts will be made to complete the hearing of the case on January 4 and consultation. After that, judicial assistants can also be appointed.

Later, the Supreme Court adjourned the case related to lifelong disqualification till 11:30 on January 4.