Supreme Court tells PHC to decide Shibli Faraz’s appeal against disqualification as senator Azad News HD
Supreme Court Directs PHC to Decide Shibli Faraz’s Disqualification Appeal — A Test of Judicial Balance and Political Fairness in Pakistan
In a significant legal development that could influence the evolving relationship between Pakistan’s judiciary and political landscape, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday directed the Peshawar High Court (PHC) to decide on the pending appeal filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Shibli Faraz against his disqualification as a senator. The top court’s directive has once again brought to the forefront crucial debates over judicial independence, due process, and the role of institutions in upholding constitutional governance amid growing political turbulence.
The order was issued by a constitutional bench comprising senior justices of the Supreme Court, underscoring the matter’s constitutional sensitivity and its potential implications on parliamentary representation. The bench emphasized that the PHC must hear and decide the appeal in accordance with the law without further delay, ensuring that justice is neither denied nor deferred. This decision has reignited national discourse over accountability, fairness, and the thin line separating judicial review from political influence.
The Background of Shibli Faraz’s Disqualification
Shibli Faraz, a senior PTI leader, former federal minister, and close aide of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, was disqualified earlier this year on charges relating to alleged discrepancies in his nomination papers. According to reports, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had found certain irregularities in the assets declaration submitted by Faraz during his Senate elections. Following a complaint lodged by a rival political faction, the ECP disqualified him, citing misrepresentation and violation of electoral rules.
Faraz, however, termed the verdict politically motivated, asserting that the decision was part of a wider campaign to marginalize PTI leaders through “selective application of justice.” His appeal before the PHC sought to overturn the ECP’s order, arguing that the electoral body had exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to follow procedural fairness.
Despite filing his appeal several months ago, the case saw limited progress in the PHC due to procedural delays and shifting judicial priorities. It was against this backdrop that the Supreme Court intervened, directing the high court to expedite the matter.
The Supreme Court’s Directive and Its Legal Reasoning
During Wednesday’s proceedings, the constitutional bench, led by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, emphasized that the delay in adjudicating Faraz’s appeal risked undermining the constitutional right to a fair trial. The bench noted that any challenge to a disqualification should be handled swiftly, especially when it concerns a sitting or former parliamentarian, as prolonged litigation not only affects the individual’s rights but also the representational balance of the upper house.
The Supreme Court underscored the principle that justice delayed is justice denied, pointing out that constitutional matters related to electoral representation should be resolved promptly to maintain public trust in the judiciary and the democratic process. The bench further cautioned that courts must remain vigilant against political pressures while deciding such cases, reaffirming that legal interpretation must be rooted in constitutional fidelity rather than partisan considerations.
The order’s tone was measured yet firm, reflecting the judiciary’s attempt to maintain equilibrium between procedural independence and institutional accountability.
The Broader Political Context
The directive arrives at a politically charged moment in Pakistan. The PTI continues to face intense legal and political challenges following the events of 2022 and 2023, which saw the party’s leadership embroiled in numerous court cases, including disqualifications, contempt proceedings, and corruption allegations. The party has repeatedly accused state institutions of engaging in political engineering, while government officials argue that the law must apply equally to all citizens.
Shibli Faraz, once a prominent face of the PTI government and known for his articulate defense of party policies, represents the continuity of Imran Khan’s inner circle within Pakistan’s power structure. His case has become symbolic of the broader tension between elected representatives and regulatory bodies tasked with ensuring transparency.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s intervention is also significant. With national elections expected within the next year, and the PTI struggling to regain political footing amid leadership challenges and administrative restrictions, the legal fate of figures like Shibli Faraz carries immense political weight. His reinstatement could bolster PTI’s claim that judicial institutions are beginning to correct prior “injustices,” whereas an unfavorable verdict could reinforce perceptions of continued political marginalization.
Legal Experts React
Prominent legal experts and analysts have interpreted the Supreme Court’s order as both a procedural correction and a symbolic gesture toward ensuring judicial balance. Advocate Salman Akram Raja noted that the directive reinforces the principle that appellate forums cannot indefinitely delay matters with direct constitutional consequences. “When a person’s political career and public representation are at stake, judicial inertia can itself amount to a denial of justice,” he said.
Meanwhile, constitutional expert Aitzaz Ahsan described the move as “a necessary intervention” to preserve the sanctity of electoral law. “Courts must ensure that disqualifications are not weaponized as tools of political control,” Ahsan remarked, adding that the PHC’s timely decision would demonstrate whether Pakistan’s judicial process can truly function autonomously amid competing pressures.
Conversely, some commentators have cautioned that the Supreme Court’s directive could be perceived as judicial overreach if the PHC feels constrained by the timeline imposed from above. Senior analyst Zahid Hussain argued that while the intention behind the order is sound, “institutional hierarchy must not blur the independence of provincial courts.”
PTI’s Reaction
Following the Supreme Court’s order, PTI leaders hailed the decision as a vindication of their stance that legal institutions should act impartially and without political interference. In a statement released by the party’s media wing, PTI lauded the judiciary for “upholding democratic norms and preventing selective victimization.” The statement also reiterated that Shibli Faraz’s disqualification was “a baseless attempt to silence a loyal representative of the people.”
Several PTI officials took to social media to express optimism that the PHC would now deliver justice. Former Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry commented that the decision “reaffirms that the rule of law cannot be suspended to achieve political ends.” Others suggested that the ruling could encourage renewed judicial scrutiny of other cases involving PTI members, potentially altering the legal dynamics leading up to the elections.
Government’s Stance
On the other side, government representatives have maintained that the judiciary must allow institutions like the Election Commission to perform their constitutional duties without undue interference. Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar emphasized that the ECP operates within its constitutional mandate, and any disqualification decisions undergo rigorous scrutiny before issuance. “No one is above the law, and if any discrepancies are found in a candidate’s declaration, the law provides clear recourse,” he said.
However, Tarar welcomed the Supreme Court’s direction for expeditious adjudication, stating that the government supports the rule of law and timely justice. “The decision should bring clarity and closure to an issue that has unnecessarily lingered,” he added.
The Judiciary’s Balancing Act
The order reflects a broader pattern in Pakistan’s judicial conduct in recent years — one of cautious engagement with politically sensitive cases. The judiciary, long seen as both a stabilizing force and a potential power broker, has oscillated between assertive interventions and measured restraint, particularly when cases touch upon high-profile politicians or matters of institutional friction.
The Supreme Court’s insistence on procedural timeliness aligns with global judicial norms emphasizing swift resolution of disqualification cases. In countries with parliamentary democracies, delayed adjudication on eligibility often leads to governance vacuums and political uncertainty. For Pakistan, where institutional legitimacy remains a fragile commodity, restoring public faith in judicial efficacy is as vital as ensuring correct legal interpretation.
Implications for Electoral Politics
If the PHC rules in favor of Shibli Faraz, it could have tangible implications for the PTI’s political revival. As a party elder known for his disciplined conduct and legislative acumen, Faraz’s reinstatement would not only restore his personal credibility but also strengthen the PTI’s argument that several disqualifications were politically motivated.
Conversely, if the PHC upholds the disqualification, PTI may use it as evidence of continued bias, potentially mobilizing public sympathy ahead of the elections. Either outcome will ripple through Pakistan’s already polarized political arena, influencing alliances, media narratives, and the public’s perception of judicial impartiality.
Regional Legal Precedents
Legal scholars have also drawn parallels between Faraz’s case and past disqualification appeals involving prominent figures such as Nawaz Sharif, Jahangir Tareen, and Faisal Vawda. Each case tested the judiciary’s ability to balance legal correctness with political consequence. In most instances, the courts faced criticism from opposing factions — a reflection of how deeply politicized legal outcomes have become in Pakistan.
The Supreme Court’s current approach — delegating final adjudication to the PHC while emphasizing procedural fairness — may represent a subtle evolution toward decentralized judicial accountability. This could empower high courts to assert greater control over politically sensitive cases within their jurisdiction.
Public Reaction and Media Discourse
Public reaction to the Supreme Court’s order has been mixed but intense. On social media platforms, the hashtags #ShibliFarazCase and #JudicialFairness trended nationwide, reflecting deep public interest. Supporters of PTI framed the development as “a step toward restoring faith in justice,” while critics dismissed it as “another attempt by powerful actors to rescue political allies.”
Television talk shows dedicated significant airtime to analyzing the ruling, with commentators debating whether the judiciary’s renewed activism signals a return to pre-2022 assertiveness or a pragmatic bid to restore institutional credibility amid political fatigue.
Institutional Lessons and the Road Ahead
The case underscores the enduring tension between accountability and political stability in Pakistan’s democracy. While the constitution grants oversight institutions broad authority to enforce transparency, that power must coexist with safeguards against selective enforcement. The judiciary’s role, therefore, extends beyond interpreting laws — it involves safeguarding the equilibrium of the democratic process itself.
For the PHC, the Supreme Court’s order is both a directive and a test. The high court must now deliver a verdict that not only withstands legal scrutiny but also satisfies public expectations of impartiality. Its decision will likely set a precedent for how future disqualification cases are handled — especially those involving influential political actors.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s directive to the Peshawar High Court marks a pivotal moment in Pakistan’s evolving political-judicial dynamics. It encapsulates the enduring struggle to maintain the rule of law amid partisanship, and to ensure that justice remains an instrument of fairness rather than a tool of political strategy.
