ISLAMABAD-The Islamabad High Court will Tuesday (tomorrow) resume hearing in Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan’s petition against his disqualification in Toshakhana reference. 
A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Aamer Farooq will conduct hearing of the petition of Chairman PTI against his disqualification in Toshakhana reference.
Previously, Khan’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar made the submission before that it is bizarre that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) disqualified him for the assets that he legally purchased and lawfully sold.
The counsel adopted the stance before the bench that Khan was elected as MNA from NA-95 Mianwali in July 2018 but, through an illegal order of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) dated 21/10/2022, ECP disqualified him from this seat under Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution. The decision of the Speaker to send the reference and order of ECP is unconstitutional and void ab initio, he submitted.
He adopted the stance that the Speaker without any document or evidence whatsoever, in a mechanical manner, without any reasoning and total lack of application of mind, and contrary to the law and the Constitution; accepted the application filed by a few MNAs and filed a reference before the ECP asking it to disqualify Imran Khan under Article 62(1)(f). He submitted that acting malafide in law, the ECP also accepted the reference and disqualified Imran Khan from the seat.
He argued that for a disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) to take place there must be a pre-existing declaration from a Court of Law against the Member. He pointed out that in this case there was no declaration from a Court of Law as required under Article 62(1)(f) against Imran Khan at the time of Speaker’s decision nor before ECP when it was called upon to answer the questions raised in the reference, hence, submitted that the Speaker’s reference is hence unfounded and unconstitutional and ECP should have dismissed the reference by deciding that Imran Khan does not stand disqualified under Article 62(1)(f).
Barrister Zafar further argued that ECP is not a Court of Law and there are many judgements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in which it has been decided that under Article 62(1)(f) no declaration can be made by ECP at all. He also referred to the latest case of Faisal Vowda in which the Supreme Court has decided that ECP has no jurisdiction to give any declaration under Article 62(1)(f) that a member is not sadiq or amin. On this basis, Barrister Zafar submitted that when the Speaker had sent the question to ECP whether Imran Khan is disqualified under Article 62(1)(f), the only answer ECP could give in law was that since there is no declaration from a Court of Law, Imran Khan is not disqualified under Article 62(1)(f). 
Barrister Zafar contended that since the reference had been filed by the Speaker under Article 63(2) of the Constitution under which it was necessary that the ground as provided in Article 63(1) must exist at the time of the decision before the Speaker or the ECP. However, he pointed out that in this case no issue under Article 63(1) was involved or existed at the time of the Speaker’s decision or even when ECP was called upon to answer the question raised in the reference. On this ground also, he argued that the only answer that ECP could give to the question raised by the Speaker was that no disqualification existed under Article 63(1) and hence the reference should have been dismissed on this ground alone.
Barrister Zafar told the court that ECP illegally ignored all these documents and evidence. He pointed out that this is a strange case in which assets were legally purchased and legally sold and yet ECP has disqualified Imran Khan. He referred to many judgements of the Superior Courts in which it was held that all misdeclarations are not a cause for disqualification but it has to be seen whether the declaration was for any ulterior or dishonest motive. Barrister Zafar argued that since Imran Khan had purchased the assets legally, in accordance with the rules, there was no reason for him not to mention the gifts in his asset statement and, hence, the assumption by ECP that this was dishonestly done is totally incorrect.