๐๐๐ซ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐๐ง๐ฒ ๐๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐๐ง๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐๐ญ ๐๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ: ๐๐จ๐ง๐จ๐ซ๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐ฒ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข.
In a very recent and famous case pertaining to disqualification of a member of the Parliament under Article 62 (f) (1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has already given its judgment where the said Article has been declared as not-self-executory, which cannot be put into motion unless a proper mechanism has been laid down by the Parliament.
Justice Yahya Afridi was part of the Bench and he dissented with the majority view. He has recently released his dissenting note which holds that no doubt that the Parliament is competent to legislate on any matter and it can nullify through legislation any judgment of the Court, but it cannot reverse or set aside a judgment through legislation. This might mount to render judgments of the courts ineffective through legislation. Thus, rendering the ratio of the Sami ullah Baluch case through section 232 introduced in the Election Act, 2017, cannot be allowed. The intent of the law makers is so evident from reading the said Article that why they did not provide specific period of time for disqualification. The Sami Ullah Baluch case is based on the said intent which can only be nullified through an an amendment in the Constitution. Mere an amendment in the election act is not enough.
Similarly, declaring that the said Article is not self-executory would render it redundant. This is also not allowed in the light if the principles of interpretation.
Another pertinent point he highlighted in the opinion is that it is not a sufficient ground for overruling a well-reasoned judgment of the court that there exists a different perspective of theย law laid down in the previous judgment. This will disturb the predictability and consistency in the legal system.
He has supported and upheld the ratio of the Sami Ullah Baluch case being in consonance with the Constitution.
c.a._981_2018_25032024
