ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Monday rejected Chairman Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan’s request to suspend the Election Commission of Pakistan’s decision to disqualify him in the Toshakhana (gift depository) case.
However, the court observed that Imran had not been barred from contesting in future elections following the ECP verdict in the Toshakhana reference against him. The court added that the former premier would not face any problems to contest in the NA-45 (Kurram-I) by-election scheduled to be held on October 30.
A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah conducted hearing of the petition moved by the former prime minister through his lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar challenging the ECP’s decision to disqualify him. In his petition, he cited the Secretary ECP, Speaker National Assembly and others as respondents.
Rejecting his request to suspend the ECP’s decision, the IHC bench maintained the Registrar Office’s objection over his petition and directed him to first attach the verified copy of the verdict within three days.
The registrar office had declared the petition as incomplete and raised several objections against it including lack of biometric verification and missing of a verified copy of the verdict of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in the Toshakhana case. During the hearing, the IHC Chief Justice asked that why the petitioner was in so haste in this case at the time when he was not attending the Parliament’s sessions. He made the observation that how it could suspend a decision of ECP when the verified copy of the verdict was not before it.
Justice Athar further remarked that a proceeding of ECP was conducted under the Constitution and Imran Khan could contest the elections as there was no restriction on him. The court noted that the decision attached in the petition had no signature of the concerned authority.
Imran Khan’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar argued that the ECP had not issued a detailed order so far and that they had downloaded the two-page decision from the website of the electoral body. He said that the ECP had disqualified his client and also sent this matter for further trial.
The counsel said that the decision had been discussed on media and the ECP had not issued any objection against it. He requested the court to seek the decision’s copy from the ECP. Ali Zafar said that an application had also been moved to the returning officer to stop his client from contesting the elections.
Justice Athar said that wait for the [written] verdict. Then, the counsel informed the court that the ECP had also directed to initiate legal proceedings against Imran. At this, the judge replied that the sessions court would hear that matter.
Later, the court directed the PTI counsel to remove the objections on the petition within three days and deferred the proceedings.
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.
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 before the CP which may be read an integral part of this petition. 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.
Meanwhile, the election tribunal yesterday allowed PTI Chairman Imran Khan to contest in a by-election declaring his nomination paper valid for NA-45 [Kurram].
The PTI’s Chief was de-seated from his NA-95 [Mianwali] in the light of the decision on the Tosha Khana case.
The by-election on NA-45 is scheduled to take place by the end of this month.
The election tribunal, in its hearing in an appeal against the approval of the former prime minister’s nomination papers for the constituency, allowed him to take part in the elections. The petitioner’s lawyer argued that Imran Khan is already a member of the National Assembly and has not given any reason to contest the election from another constituency.
It may be noted here that the PTI Chairman with 124 PTI MNAs has submitted resignations to the National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf. The lawyer of the commission, in the counter argument, remarked that there was no ban on contesting elections from more than one constituency.