Articles 62 and 63 of Pakistan’s Constitution are constantly mentioned together — in news bulletins, court judgments and election coverage. But they do opposite jobs. This guide compares them side by side: what each one covers, how they interact, and why confusing them leads to wrong conclusions.
Quick answer: Article 62 lists the qualifications a person must have to sit in Parliament (citizenship, age, good character, “sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen”); Article 63 lists the disqualifications that bar a person (insolvency, foreign citizenship, convictions, loan defaults). A candidate must pass 62 and avoid every clause of 63.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Point of comparison | Article 62 | Article 63 |
|---|---|---|
| Function | Qualifications — what a candidate must be | Disqualifications — what a candidate must not be |
| Core tests | Citizenship, age (25/30), voter enrolment, character | Unsound mind, insolvency, foreign citizenship, convictions |
| Moral clauses | Good character, Islamic knowledge, “sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen” | Moral-turpitude convictions, misconduct dismissals |
| Financial bars | None directly | Loan defaults (Rs 2M+), government dues (Rs 10,000+) |
| Time limits | None in the text — the source of the lifetime-ban dispute | Most bars expire 5 years after release/dismissal |
| Applies to | Both candidates and sitting members (“being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member”) | |
How They Work Together
Think of the two articles as two sieves. Article 62 is the first sieve: the returning officer checks that the candidate is qualified — citizen, old enough, enrolled, of the required character. Article 63 is the second sieve: the officer checks that the candidate is not disqualified — not insolvent, not a dual national, not convicted, not a defaulter. Passing one sieve is not enough; a candidate caught by either is out.
In the Panama Papers case, Nawaz Sharif was caught by the first sieve — declared not to meet Article 62(1)(f)’s “honest and ameen” standard. In loan-default cases of the 1990s and 2000s, candidates were caught by the second — Article 63(1)(n).
The Time-Limit Puzzle
The most important interaction between the two articles is about time. Article 63 expressly time-limits its conviction-based disqualifications to five years after release. Article 62(1)(f) sets no period at all. For years the courts read that silence as “for life” (2018). In January 2024 the Supreme Court reversed course 6–1, holding that the Constitution’s own scheme — which forgives even convicted criminals after five years — cannot permanently bar someone on the vaguer character tests. The disqualification period is now governed by electoral law: five years under the amended Elections Act 2017.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Article 62 about qualification and Article 63 about disqualification?
Exactly. Article 62 states the qualifications for membership of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament); Article 63 states the disqualifications. They were both substantially amended by the Eighth Amendment in 1985.
Which article was used against Nawaz Sharif?
Article 62(1)(f) — the “sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen” clause — in the Supreme Court’s 28 July 2017 Panama Papers verdict.
Do Articles 62 and 63 apply to provincial assemblies too?
Yes. Article 63 expressly covers the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), and Article 113 applies the same qualifications and disqualifications to the provincial assemblies.
Can a disqualified person ever return to Parliament?
In most cases, yes — after the disqualification period expires (typically five years for conviction-based bars under Article 63, and five years under the Elections Act for 62(1)(f) following the 2024 ruling), provided no other clause still applies.
