‘Delaying tactic’: Contempt petition filed against IHC registrar
Petitioner says plea against Imran Khan deliberately fixed before a bench which already recused itself
The Islamabad High Court. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
A petitioner has requested the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to initiate contempt proceedings against its own deputy judicial registrar “for interfering in judicial process” by fixing a petition seeking the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan’s disqualification before a bench which has already recused it.
Surprised, the registrar office has raised objection to the application stating: “How a contempt petition is entertainable against administrative work of high court?”
Earlier, a division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb had recused itself after the petitioner’s counsel raised objections on the formation of the bench saying initially the case was fixed before the IHC’s Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and Justice Farooq.
Accountability court directs NAB to produce witness
The IHC chief justice had reconstituted the bench and replaced Justice Siddiqui with Justice Aurangzeb. The reconstituted bench was dissolved on Aug 1 after the bench recused itself from the case. Petitioner Abdul Wahab Baloch, a candidate for election from the NA-53, through his counsel Sheikh Ahsanuddin raised objections on Khan for not disclosing his ‘daughter’ Tyrian Jade KhanWhite in the nomination papers.
Baloch, who belongs to the Pakistan Justice and Democratic Party (PJDP) led by former chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, requested the court to call upon Imran to appear and state as to why in violation of Article 62 (1)(d)(e)(f) he submitted a false declaration and affidavit and why his election as a member parliament be not rejected.
Interestingly, the petitioner relied upon the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, ex-prime minister of Pakistan, along with the Supreme Court’s July 28, 2017 judgement in Panama Papers case.
The counsel argued that Sharif was held disqualified as he failed to disclose his un-withdrawn receivables from Capital FZE in his nomination papers filed for general election held in 2013 in terms of section 12(2)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA).
Also, he said, for furnishing a false declaration under solemn affirmation Sharif was declared not honest in terms of section 99 (f) of ROPA and Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution, therefore, disqualified to be a member of Parliament.
Court roundup: SHC rejects plea to hold PS-122’s winning notification
In the instant application, attorney for petitioner through his counsel Nosheen Gul Kharal stated that the applicant filed an application for early hearing on Aug 8, which obviously was to be fixed before a bench other than the one which had already recused it. However, on Aug 9, the application along with the main petition was fixed before the same bench “intentionally to delay hearing of the case”.
She maintained that it was duty of deputy registrar to ensure fixation of case for Aug 10 even if special bench was to be constituted but he and his office failed to discharge their duty and interfered in judicial function and obstructed the process of the court under Article 204 of the Constitution read with contempt of court ordinance of 2003.
The petition said the deputy registrar and all other persons dealing with such urgent case are liable for contempt of court and deserve to be punished adequately. She also sought disciplinary departmental action under the high court rules.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 15th, 2018.
A petitioner has requested the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to initiate contempt proceedings against its own deputy judicial registrar “for interfering in judicial process” by fixing a petition seeking the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan’s disqualification before a bench which has already recused it.
Surprised, the registrar office has raised objection to the application stating: “How a contempt petition is entertainable against administrative work of high court?”
Earlier, a division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb had recused itself after the petitioner’s counsel raised objections on the formation of the bench saying initially the case was fixed before the IHC’s Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and Justice Farooq.
Accountability court directs NAB to produce witness
The IHC chief justice had reconstituted the bench and replaced Justice Siddiqui with Justice Aurangzeb. The reconstituted bench was dissolved on Aug 1 after the bench recused itself from the case. Petitioner Abdul Wahab Baloch, a candidate for election from the NA-53, through his counsel Sheikh Ahsanuddin raised objections on Khan for not disclosing his ‘daughter’ Tyrian Jade KhanWhite in the nomination papers.
Baloch, who belongs to the Pakistan Justice and Democratic Party (PJDP) led by former chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, requested the court to call upon Imran to appear and state as to why in violation of Article 62 (1)(d)(e)(f) he submitted a false declaration and affidavit and why his election as a member parliament be not rejected.
Interestingly, the petitioner relied upon the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, ex-prime minister of Pakistan, along with the Supreme Court’s July 28, 2017 judgement in Panama Papers case.
The counsel argued that Sharif was held disqualified as he failed to disclose his un-withdrawn receivables from Capital FZE in his nomination papers filed for general election held in 2013 in terms of section 12(2)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (ROPA).
Also, he said, for furnishing a false declaration under solemn affirmation Sharif was declared not honest in terms of section 99 (f) of ROPA and Article 62(1) (f) of the Constitution, therefore, disqualified to be a member of Parliament.
Court roundup: SHC rejects plea to hold PS-122’s winning notification
In the instant application, attorney for petitioner through his counsel Nosheen Gul Kharal stated that the applicant filed an application for early hearing on Aug 8, which obviously was to be fixed before a bench other than the one which had already recused it. However, on Aug 9, the application along with the main petition was fixed before the same bench “intentionally to delay hearing of the case”.
She maintained that it was duty of deputy registrar to ensure fixation of case for Aug 10 even if special bench was to be constituted but he and his office failed to discharge their duty and interfered in judicial function and obstructed the process of the court under Article 204 of the Constitution read with contempt of court ordinance of 2003.
The petition said the deputy registrar and all other persons dealing with such urgent case are liable for contempt of court and deserve to be punished adequately. She also sought disciplinary departmental action under the high court rules.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 15th, 2018.