ISLAMABAD-The Islamabad High Court (IHC) will Monday (today) take up Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to disqualify him in the Toshakhana (gift depository) case.
A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah will conduct hearing of the petition moved by the former prime minister through his lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar and cited the Secretary ECP, Speaker National Assembly and others as respondents.
The petitioner stated in the petition that he filed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for 2018, 2019 till 2021 in December 2018, 2019 till December 2021 and all assets or proceeds of sale thereof in shape of money as the case had been, as were available on 30th June of each year had always been declared by the petitioner before the ECP.
The PTI Chairman contended that if ECP had any objection to any of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities filed by the Petitioner or wanted any clarifications or additional details, under section 137 (4) ibid ECP could do so in 120 days and the ECP never raised any query or objection etc as required by Section 137(4) within 120 days.
He further contended that however the Speaker National Assembly without hearing the petitioner, and (without) any evidence or document and contrary to the Constitution and the law, in a mechanical manner, on 05-08-2022, filed a Reference containing the following allegations: (i) the Petitioner had not paid for the gifts obtained from the Toshakhana for 2018-2019; (ii) Petitioner had concealed the Toshakhana gifts received in year 2018-2019 in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities filed u/s 137 ibid and (iii) accordingly the Petitioner is disqualified under Article 62(1) f of the Constitution and ECP should disqualify him accordingly.
Imran adopted that all allegations or questions were and continue to be vehemently false and baseless and the burden to prove any concealment of course was on the movers of the Reference and the Speaker. However as above stated, the Speaker acted unlawfully. Therefore, the petitioner filed his reply in detail on 06-09-2022.
He added that in the reply, the detail of the gifts was fully provided and furnished before the ECP. He continued that in response to the question whether payment of the 14 gifts was made, the petitioner submitted the official challan reflecting the amount deposited in the Bank by the petitioner for retaining the aforesaid 14 gifts presented to him or Begum Prime Minister which were also appended therewith.
Khan’s counsel argued that in addition, complete tax returns of the petitioner during those years (2018-2021) were also filed before the ECP as part of the reply to the reference and the tax returns also showed the taxes had been paid by the petitioner on the sale of the assets. He also said that respondents never disputed or filed rejoinder to the aforesaid reply.
The ECP also never asked for any further clarification or material whatsoever during hearing or otherwise. However, later it was found out that after judgment had been reserved and behind the back of the petitioner and without calling his lawyers or giving them an opportunity to explain, certain documents were obtained by the ECP from State Bank and the Government.
He continued that the arguments were heard and order on reference was reserved on 19-09-2022 and on 21-10-2021, the order was announced and petitioner was disqualified as Member National Assembly and seat was declared as vacant under Article 63(2) of the Constitution. It is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner had already resigned from the seat and hence there was no question of any de-seating. In fact the reference was infructuous.
Imran argued that the impugned order of the ECP is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, based on no evidence, contrary to record and ultra vires the jurisdiction of the ECP; hence illegal and null and void.
Therefore, he prayed to the court to declare, find and hold that the impugned order dated 21-10-2022 is against the settled principles of law on Article 63 of the Constitution, misconceived and set it aside.
He requested the court to declare find and hold that the ECP could not have exercised the jurisdiction to decide any questions of ‘corrupt practice or disqualification’ under Section137 read with Section 232 of the Election Act and further read with Rule137 of Election Rules, 2017.
Khan also requested the court to declare that the reference itself is incompetent, illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority, mala-fide and devoid of force and in the circumstance of the instant case declare it as null and void in the interest of justice.
In the meanwhile, he prayed that this court may kindly be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order of the ECP and restrain further proceeding by ECP or its behest till final disposal of the titled petition.