Although the Islamabad High Court has issued a pre-admission notice to PTI chairman and deposed premier Imran Khan about his disqualification over the non-disclosure of his alleged child, a division bench of the same court had rejected a plea in a similar matter three years ago by saying that it was not in public interest.
A single-judge bench of IHC Chief Justice Aamir Farooq recently issued a pre-admission notice to the PTI chief and adjourned the matter for two weeks.
When a petitioner had sought lifetime disqualification of Imran under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution in a similar matter, a division bench of the IHC comprising then high court chief justice Athar Minallah and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb in its three-page order on January 21, 2019 had noted that the allegations against the PTI chief related to his private life. "Moreover, the rights of a child, named in the petition, are also involved. Her rights may irretrievably be harmed if this court undertakes the probe,” the 2019 verdict read.
"The likely consequences relating to the rights of the child is a sufficient ground for refusing to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this court under Article 199 of the Constitution,” it added.
The order stated that the respondent, Imran, was elected from five constituencies in the 2018 general elections.
It further noted that the nature of the probe sought by the petitioner, beside prejudicing the interests and rights of a child, was likely to cause irretrievable harm to the respondent and his constituents.
"We feel that it is not in public interest to entertain the petition in hand, let alone ordering a probe regarding allegations which relate to the private life of the respondent,” the order stated.
"The grant of relief prayed for, rather than fostering the cause of justice is likely to perpetuate injustice,” it added.
The bench noted that a high court could refuse to exercise its extraordinary discretion when it was satisfied that entertaining a petition would result in the miscarriage of justice.
Also read: IHC to hear Imran's disqualification plea for concealing ‘daughter’
"This court has a backlog and entertaining the petition would lead to prejudicing the rights of the litigants. We, therefore, are not inclined to exercise the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction vested in this court under Article 199 of the Constitution and, therefore, the petition is accordingly dismissed,” the order read.
In the present matter, the petitioner has sought Imran’s disqualification over non-disclosure of one alleged child in an affidavit along with his nomination papers submitted to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for NA-95 Mianwali-1 seat in the 2018 general elections.
Interestingly, the commission has already de-notified Imran from the same constituency on October 23.
The petitioner has sought lifetime disqualification in view of the Habib Akram judgment wherein a five-judge larger bench of the apex court, led by then CJP Saqib Nisar, had directed all candidates of the July 25, 2018 general elections to attach approved affidavits along with their applications.
The directives came after the court practically restored almost all information omitted in the nomination forms approved by parliament in the previous year.
These affidavits included declarations by the candidates about not defaulting on a bank loan or utility charges; details about their spouse(s) and dependents and their businesses; details of any criminal ccharge; educational credentials; taxes paid in the last three years; contribution to community’s welfare; donations to the party or sums received from it; and net assets with annual increase or decrease in them.
The order noted that if the affidavit or any part thereof was found to be false, then it would have consequences, as contemplated by the Constitution and the law.
“Since the affidavit is required to be filed in pursuance of the orders of this court, therefore, if any false statement is made therein, it would also entail such a penalty as is of filing a false affidavit before this court,” it read.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ