Article 62 of the Pakistan's constitution insists on ‘Sadiq, Amin’ for MPs

A comparative study of the codified American, Canadian, Australian, Saudi Arabian and Indian constitutions, together with a glance through the unwritten British Constitution, reveals that stability of character is the basic qualification required to qualify as a parliamentarian anywhere around the globe.

Although, pre-requisites such as age restrictions and nationality etc are common in both written and unwritten constitutions, the key qualification criterion listed for any parliamentarian in each of these six countries mentioned above, is that the aspirant should neither be involved in any crime nor should he have a conviction history.

A few of these constitutions have also mentioned clearly that lunatics should not qualify as legislators, but no matter which religion they follow or which belief they hold, lawmakers in every country of the world are required to have crime-free life history in order to qualify as members of legislative houses or even after they manage to get elected to the houses.

These constitutions have not used many adjectives to describe the qualities needed to be a parliamentarian, contrary to the clauses D, E and F of Article 62 of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan, which state that a person can only qualify to be a legislator if he bears good character, has to be righteous, non-profligate and honest, but the crux of all these constitutions is the same. They all want clean people in parliament.

Article 62 of Pakistan’s Constitution also reads that in order to qualify to this status, an aspirant assembly member should not be commonly known as the one who violates Islamic injunctions, have an adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam, besides abstaining from major sins.

However, emphasis on Islamic injunctions is specifically laid in the constitutions of the Muslim and Arab world for natural reasons, because the Islamic code of law (Shariat) is the foundation of the legal systems prevalent there.

In the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, for instance, the Holy Quran is considered the Constitution of the country. The US Constitution of 1787, which derives its roots from European innovations such as the Magna Carta (1215) and UK Bill of Rights (1689), states in its 14th Amendment that if a representative takes the requisite oath to support the Constitution, but later engages in rebellion or aids the enemies of the United States, he stands disqualified.

This post-Civil War provision was intended to prevent those legislators from serving, who had sided with the rebellious US states. The American Civil war (1861-65) had triggered after a dozen of states had parted ways with the Confederacy over a problem that had started with the collection of taxes, but other issues later pooled in to add fuel to the fire.

A member of the US Congress or the Upper House of Parliament can also be expelled by a two-third vote for crimes related and treason and rebellious acts. Not fewer than 15 senators were expelled in the US history between 1797 and 1862 for acting against their country’s interests.

Although no US senator has been expelled since 1862, many senators like Bob Packwood opted to resign in 1995, when faced with expulsion proceedings.

The US Senate also has a practice of condemning Senators. The censure or condemnation requires only a simple majority, though it does not remove a Senator from office. But some Senators like Robert Torricelli opted to withdraw from their re-election races in 2002, before facing such censures.

In England, a person may not sit in the House of Commons if he or she is the subject of a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (applicable in England and Wales only), or if he is adjudged bankrupt (in Northern Ireland), or if his estate is confiscated (in Scotland).

Also, lunatics are ineligible to sit in the House of Commons. There also exists a law precedent from the 18th century that the “deaf and dumb” are ineligible to sit in the Lower House. This precedent, however, has not been tested in recent years, although MP Jack Ashley continued to serve for 25 years after becoming profoundly deaf.

While anyone found guilty of high treason in UK is not allowed to sit in the Parliament, a person serving a prison sentence of one year or more is ineligible too.

Then, there is a 10-year disqualification for those found guilty of certain election-related offences. In Canada, whenever a member of the House of Commons or Senate is convicted of a crime, questions invariably arise regarding his eligibility.

The laying of a criminal charge against a member of the House of Commons or Senate has no effect in terms of his eligibility to remain in office. Even if convicted, a parliamentarian will automatically lose his seat only if sentenced to imprisonment of two years or more, pursuant to section 750 of the Criminal Code.

The Canadian law also disqualifies those imprisoned in correctional institutions. Members can be expelled from the Canadian parliament according to Section 31 of the Constitution Act, 1867, under which a senator loses his seat if he is declared bankrupt, absence from two consecutive sessions of parliament or if he is being convicted of treason, felony or any other infamous crime.

A legislator can also lose his seat if he is convicted of an indictable offence, for which he is sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. A parliamentarian convicted of a summary criminal offence carrying a sentence of fewer than two years, can also be expelled from the House or Senate, but expulsion would require a resolution of the chamber, rather than being automatic.

In the Constitution of India, which is the longest written Constitution of any country in the world, if anybody is convicted for some offence and is sentenced to imprisonment for two years, he cannot contest elections. Even if he is on bail or disposal of his appeal is pending, he can still not be eligible to contest polls. In Australia, a parliamentarian can be challenged if he is convicted of treason or for an offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer under a State or Commonwealth law.

By: Sabir Shah