' The appellant is aggrieved of an order dated 2-9-2014 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of this Court. Through the impugned order, a constitutional petition filed by the appellant seeking disqualification of the respondents was dismissed on the ground that the question raised in this petition fell within the domain of "political question" and was therefore not justiciable. Reliance was placed on Messrs Hudabiya Paper Mills Ltd and others v. National Accountability Bureau (PLD 2012 Lahore 515).
2. The appellant submits that the respondent No,1 (Prime Minister of Pakistan) made a statement on the floor of the National Assembly that he had not asked the Armed Forces to become "Arbitrators" in the ongoing political stand-of. However, the said statement was contradicted by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Department of the Armed Forces, who stated that the Armed Forces had been asked by government to act as "Facilitators". Subsequently respondent No,2 confirmed this fact and also claimed that the twitter message issued by ISPR had been issued with the approval of the Federal Government. The appellant, therefore, argues that the respondent, who (according to him) had made a false statement on the floor of the House did not fulfil the qualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) as he was not "honest" and "Ameen".
3. The appellant further submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have defamed the Armed Forces of Pakistan and are liable to be disqualified under Article 63(g) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution").
4. The learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan, who has appeared on Court's call, submits that in the first instance the petition Was not maintainable and was correctly dismissed by learned Judge in Chambers of this Court. He states that the alleged statement was made on the floor of the National Assembly. It constitutes part of proceedings of Parliament which are privileged and enjoy immunities in terms of Articles 66 and 69 of the Constitution. He further submits that reliance on Articles 62(f) and 63(g) of the Constitution is totally misplaced. He maintains that the appellant claims to be Senior Vice President of Insaf Lawyers Forum, which is the lawyer wing of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf ("PTI). The said party has representation in the National Assembly. Even if a mis- statement has allegedly been made (which is denied) the Constitution as well as rules and regulations of the National Assembly provide the appropriate, substantive and procedural mechanism to address such issues. He finally argues that nothing has been placed on record which may even remotely constitute basis for disqualification of respondent No,
1. The relief sought being of a political nature, this Court is not the appropriate forum for the same.
5. We have heard the appellant as well as learned Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan and gone through the record.
6. The only question requiring determination by this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances and on the basis of material placed before us, the respondents can be disqualified as members of the National Assembly.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examination of the record, our response to the above question is in negative for the following reasons:- a.The main stay of the appellant's case is that respondent No,1 made a statement on the floor of the National Assembly to the effect that he had not asked the Ahmed forces of Pakistan to act as "Arbitrators" in the ongoing political milieu. It is argued that said statement was contradicted by respondent No,2 as well as ISPR, who stated that the government had asked the Armed Forces to act as "Facilitators". We have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the appellant to explain how the said statements constitute lies or mis-statements in view of the fact that words "Arbitrator" or "Facilitator" carry different meanings and connotations. He has not been able to satisfy us with any cogent or legally sustainable response.The appellant is obviously indulging in mind games of semantics which may have a place in the political arena, but certainly not in a court of law. This is one of the reasons why the learned Single Bench has rightly termed it as a "political question" hence not justiciable. b. We have asked the appellant to explain if he has any material other than newspapers cuttings to substantiate his claim. He has frankly conceded that other than newspapers cuttings he has no material available with him nor has he offered to produce any additional material. c. The appellant has heavily relied upon Article 62(1) of the Constitution to support his case. The relevant portion of Article 62 is reproduced below: "62. Qualification .For membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).--(1) A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless---
(f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen, there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law."
The learned counsel has also been confronted with the language of Article 62 (f) of the Constitution and asked to explain if there is a declaration already in the field or he seeks a declaration from this Court to the effect that respondent No,1 is not "Honest" and "Ameen". He has responded that he seeks neither. He submits that the fact that respondent No,1 has lied furnishes sufficient basis to disqualify him as member of Majlis-e-Shooxa (Parliament). We are afraid the argument is misconceived. The language of Article 62(f) of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. The allegation of "lying" needs to be established before a competent forum. This has not, been done. We are therefore of the view that the provisions of Article 62(t) of the Constitution are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. d. The question whether or not certain statements were made, who made such statements and in what background and context necessitates a factual inquiry. Such factual inquiry cannot ordinarily be undertaken while exercising extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. e. As far as Article 63(g) of the Constitution relied upon by appellant is concerned, for ease of reference the same is reproduced below:--
63. Disqualification for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).---(I) A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen, as and from being, a member of the Majlis-eShoora (Parliament), if---
(g) he has been convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction. For propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner, prejudicial to the. Ideology of Pakistan, or the sovereignty, integrity or security of Pakistan, or the integrity or independence of the judiciary of Pakistan, or which defames or brings into ridicule the judiciary or the Armed Forces of Pakistan, unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release."
A plain reading of the above portion of Article 63 makes it abundantly clear that it pre-conditions a disqualification, on conviction by a Court of competent jurisdiction for "propagating any opinion or acting in any manner, which ... Defames or brings into ridicule Armed Forces of Pakistan". It is clear and obvious to us that reliance of the Appellant on Article 63(g) of the Constitution is also misplaced and the same does not help his case in any manner. f. It is also noticed that the provisions of Articles 66 and 69 of the Constitution provide certain privileges and immunities to proceedings. Of Majlis-Shoora (Parliament). The said Articles are reproduced below for ready reference: "66. Privileges of members, etc.--(I) Subject to the Constitution and to the rules of procedure of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), there shall be freedom of speech in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and no member shall be liable to any proceedings in any Court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Majlis-eShoora (Parliament), and no shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of Majils-e-Shoora (Parliament) of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
(2) In other respects, the powers, immunities and privileges of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), and the immunities and privileges of the members of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), shall be such as may from time to time be defined by law and, until so defined, shall be such as were, immediately before the commencing day, enjoyed by the National Assembly of Pakistan and the committees thereof and its members.
(3) Provision may be made by law for the punishment, by a House, of persons who refuse to give evidence or produce documents before a committee of the House when duly required by the Chairman of the committee so to do: ' Provided that any such law---
(a) May empower a Court to punish a person who refuses to give evidence or produce documents; and
(b) Shall have effect subject to such. Order for safeguarding confidential matters from disclosure as may be made by the President.
(4) The provisions of the Article shall apply to persons who have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of Majlts-e-Shoora (Parliament) as they apply to members.
(5) In this Article, Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) means either House or a joint sitting, or a committee thereof"
"Article 69. Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Ma/lis-eShoora (Parliament).---(1)The validity of any proceedings in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament): shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any Court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.
(3) In this Article Majlis-e-Shoora, (Parliament) has the same meaning as in Article 66."
' Although the said privileges and immunities are not unqualified and have a number of exceptions, the appellant has not been able to show that his case falls within any of the exceptions. In this regard reference may usefully be made to Syed Masroor Ahsan and others v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and others (PLD 1998 SC 823). g. Notwithstanding and in addition to what has been stated above; considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the question raised through this appeal. Clearly falls within the definition of 'political question" for which adequate and sufficient mechanisms are available in the Constitution as well as in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly. h. We have also repeatedly asked the appellant to address us on the question of maintainability of the petition and his locus standi to file the same. The appellant has chosen not to address us on these material aspects of this case. i. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to convince us that this is a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, which is discretionary in nature. No case is made out for exercise of such discretion in favour of the appellant.
8. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
THE END