Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 . 14 a declaration of dishonesty and impose the penalty of lifetime disqualification. It has been held that unless dishonesty is established in appropriate judicial proceedings, Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution cannot be invoked to disqualify an elected member for life. In the same vein, in the case of Malik Shakeel Awan (ibid), while summing up the law on this aspect of the matter, Sh. Azmat Saeed, J (in his majority opinion) held as follows: “3. Even otherwise, the present lis pertains to the validity of a judgment of the Election Tribunal challenged through the instant appeal under Section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (RoPA) while through the question raised a very wide net has been cast encompassing also the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as well as the impact of various provisions relating to qualifications and disqualifications of Members of the Parliament and the Provincial Assemblies. Several of the questions raised obviously do not arise at the lis at hand, while the other have been answered definitively by this Court in its various judgments. 4. In our legal system, law evolves brick by brick and from judgment to judgment. If the judgments pertaining to electoral disputes rendered by this Court are carefully read, objectively understood and the ratio thereof correctly identified, it would be clear and obvious that principles of law, in this behalf, appear to have been settled and consistently applied to the facts of each individual case. The difference in outcome, if any, is the result of difference in the facts of each case. Such principles of law do not require any further clarification on hypothetical considerations. The confusion, if any, is not in the judgments. 5. This Court, for that matter any court, seized of a lis is required to decide the same rather than to embark upon an academic exercise. We cannot shy away from adjudicating upon the lis that comes before the Court without attempting to ascertain and identify the principles of law as developed through the interpretative process of the previous judgments of this Court and apply the same to the facts of the case.” 17. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding and reaffirming that this Court is indeed also a “Court of Law” which can issue a “declaration” within the purview of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. Any other interpretation would be absurd and illogical. It would amount to holding that this