The Constitution of Pakistan allows the elected members of the Parliament and Senate to impeach the President, but on what grounds?

Article 47(1) states:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, the President may, in accordance with the provisions of this Article, be removed from office on the ground of physical or mental incapacity or impeached on a charge of violating the Constitution or gross misconduct.

This is the only article declaring clearly the grounds on which the President can be removed from the office. The four factors given here are physical incapacity, mental incapacity, violation of Constitution and gross misconduct. How does this apply to Pervez Musharraf? Let’s analyse the four factors one by one.

PHYSICAL INCAPACITY
Pervez Musharraf is completely fit physically so this factor is discounted immediately.

MENTAL INCAPACITY
This doesn’t apply as well because apparently the President’s brain is working overtime these days.

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION
This is what most people consider to be THE most important factor that can be taken as a case against Musharraf. The extra-constitutional actions of Oct. 12 and Nov. 3 can be easily mentioned here and the case is straightforward. Is it so? Not exactly. The emergency and the coup of Oct. 12 was ratified by the Supreme Court of Pakistan (including Iftikhar Chaudhry, for the record). It is now a decision that features prominently in all the law books which the judges and lawyers refer to when making decisions in the future. An act or a set of actions which has been validated by the Supreme Court cannot be used as a case against the President. On similar grounds, the Nov. 3 actions were also validated by whatever Supreme Court that is functioning. Technically, the violation of Constitution cannot be used against the President as a reason for impeachment.

GROSS MISCONDUCT
This is a vague term and can be taken to mean a lot of things. The prominent allegations against Musharraf are the Lal Masjid Operation and those in tribal areas. Now, there was a government sitting at the time all such operations took place. It was a democratically elected government and the fact that its control was with the President is not a legal claim. So, these actions are attributed to the PM and not the President. Using gross misconduct as a reason for impeachment can easily go to the higher courts for interpretation.

Meanwhile, if the coalition still goes for an impeachment without a sound legal reason, the Supreme Court may use its right to interfere in the matters or an appeal filed by someone can cause the proceedings of the House to stop until the Supreme Court deems it right.

From a legal point of view, impeachment can be really tough. The legal experts of the political parties (if there are any) will definitely look into the matter with a magnifying glass because the repercussions of a failed attempt of impeachment can be devastating for the ruling coalition and will strengthen the President to an unimaginable extent.