The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday said that details of dependents, and not children, were required to be mentioned in the nomination papers.
The court was hearing arguments on the maintainability of a petition seeking disqualification of PTI Chairman Imran Khan for concealing his alleged daughter Tyrian White.
A three-member larger bench of the IHC led by Chief Justice Aamir Farooq heard the case.
The petitioner’s counsel completed his arguments on the maintainability of the plea.
The IHC chief justice said that the details of dependents and not children were required to be given in the nomination papers. He said even if Imran accepts Tyrian as his daughter the petition would have to be seen from legal aspects.
Petitioner’s lawyer Hamid Ali Shah argued that the PTI chief had mentioned Bushra Bibi as his wife, and his sons, Suleman and Qasim living with his former wife in the affidavit that he had submitted along with the nomination papers.
He said Imran had further stated that his sons were residing with their mother in the United Kingdom and were not dependent on him.
The sons certainly would not be dependent on Imran Khan but the daughter is as she is unmarried, the petitioner’s counsel argued.
He said mentioning the names of two children while not disclosing the name of the third one was considered malicious intent.
The IHC chief justice remarked that even if Imran accepts Tyrian as his daughter the petition will not be approved legally.
He said the legal requirements of the affidavit will also have to be seen.
He said here the word dependent had been used, and not children, asking whether some children could be dependent while others not.
The PTI chairman’s counsel Salman Akram Raja replied that Imran’s children were earlier dependent but not now.
He said Imran had mentioned the name of his children for clarity purpose otherwise the names of those who are not dependents are not even disclosed.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the PTI chief should also have mentioned the name of his alleged daughter at the time of mentioning the names of his sons.
He argued that if someone is accused, he should deny the allegations.
The court adjourned the hearing of the case till March 29 after the petitioner’s counsel completed his arguments.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ