ISLAMABAD, Jan 3: The Supreme Court has held the graduation condition for legislators imposed in 2002 by former president Pervez Musharraf as unjust and unconstitutional.

“Wisdom and knowledge are God-gifted, inborn and inherent virtues and might not always be dependent on acquiring certificates or degrees,” Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar wrote in a detailed judgment issued on Saturday.

On April 21 last year, a seven-member bench had scrapped the graduation condition for legislators.

The judgment held that it would not be fair to deprive society of the services of such people merely because they do not come to a certain yardstick.

The educational qualification is neither a reasonable restriction nor a reasonable classification within the contemplation of Articles 17 (freedom of association) and 25 (equality of citizens) of the Constitution and the same is declared to be void, the judgment said.

Through Article 8(A) of the Chief Executive Order No 17, Section 99 (1)(CC) was inserted into the Representation of People’s Act 1976, in 2002, requiring a contesting candidate to be at least a graduate in any discipline or holder of a degree recognised by the Higher Education Commission.

On July 11, 2002, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court had upheld the graduation condition on a PML-Q petition, but now in the fresh judgment the apex court said the Constitution was in abeyance then. Moreover, no authentic data was placed before the court to show the lack of educational facilities in far-flung areas like Pata, Fata and Balochistan.

Authored by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, the 78-page verdict observed that the framers of the Constitution have already taken care of education-related qualification, under Article 62 that provided that a candidate for election should have adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam and who abstains from major sins, is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen.

The need is to ensure that the public representative offices are manned by persons possessing such attributes, the judgment emphasised, adding the presence of such persons in public offices would rid society of evils it was afflicted with.

Elaborating why graduation condition is unreasonable in the context of fundamental rights, the judgment said: One, it was not called for in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan or public order in terms of Article 17(2); two, it did not take into consideration social and economic conditions of Pakistan and their impact on the people; and three, a vast majority of the population would be deprived of their cherished right of franchise.

The educational qualification as a condition for contesting election, with the exception of elementary education, or the ability to read and write, is not in vogue in other countries of the world. It is also against the principles recognised by the United Nations in its different charters, the judgment said.

The classification based on educational qualification for contesting election is unreasonable inasmuch as at the most 2.6 per cent of the population and 6.9 per cent of the registered voters will be eligible to contest the election while more than 93 per cent of the registered voters will be disenfranchised. This is against the spirit of democracy, the judgment observed.

These figures are based on the record of the HEC, while according to Nadra, the percentage is lower, according to which the number of graduate citizens is only 1.6 per cent of the total population and 4.1 per cent of the registered voters.

The literacy rate in the country is just 35 per cent, which also includes persons who can read, write or just sign, the judgment said.

According to the petitioners, the state had not fulfilled its obligation of imparting education to all its citizens and that acquiring education is dependent upon the physical conditions and the milieu in which a person may find himself.

Also there is a sharp difference between rural and urban literacy rate and the urban population has always an upper hand in the sphere of education, it said.

The minimum age of a voter has been fixed at 18 years. There is no criterion in terms of education for a voter. Thus, the person who has a right to vote has no right to contest election.

A vast majority of the population has been rendered ineligible to contest election through an unjust and unconstitutional requirement of educational qualification, the judgment said.