Tyrian plea against Imran declared ‘inadmissible’

IHC observes matter already decided last year

ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday declared the Tyrian White petition against PTI founding chairman Imran Khan as inadmissible, observing that the matter had already been heard and decided upon.

An IHC larger bench headed by Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri heard the plea, seeking the former premier’s disqualification on the grounds that he did not declare his alleged daughter in his nomination papers.

The other judges on the bench were Justices Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Saman Rafat Imtiaz.

Lawyer Hamid Ali Shah appeared before the court representing the petitioner, Muhammad Sajid.

He informed the court that PTI counsel Salman Akram Raja had sought an adjournment in the matter.

At this point, PTI lawyer Naeem Haider Panjutha intervened, stating that the verdict in this case was announced in May last year and was subsequently uploaded on the court’s website.

He added that this case has also been cited by the six IHC judges in their letter written to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) about the “interference” of intelligence agencies in their functions.

Justice Jahangiri observed that two of the three judges hearing the case declared the application inadmissible. “What will be the effect after the decision of two judges?” he inquired.

The petitioner's lawyer replied that the IHC chief justice, who was heading that bench, had not signed the order.

The judge again asked the petitioner's lawyer about the possible effect of an order when two judges had signed it.

Hamid then sought two to three weeks’ time to prepare his arguments. However, the judge asked how the court could give a date for a hearing a plea that had already been rejected.

Read Petitioner ‘must prove’ Imran’s paternity to Tyrian

Hamid said he required some time to seek judicial assistance.

Despite the lawyer’s request, the court declared the case against the former premier ‘inadmissible’.

As the IHC took up the case again after a year, the PTI claimed it was an “unjust” attempt to keep Imran imprisoned.

A spokesperson for the party, in a strongly-worded statement, criticised the move as a “desperate and baseless” effort by Imran’s opponents, who had already faced setbacks in other legal battles, including the Toshakhana, cipher, and Al-Qadir Trust cases, to keep him behind bars.

He accused the IHC chief justice of bias, claiming that his decision to form a new bench to hear the Tyrian case, despite an “existing” verdict by a three-judge bench, demonstrated partiality against the PTI founding chairman.

The spokesperson denounced the ongoing filing of what he described as “bogus cases” including the Tyrian and Iddat ones against Imran.

Last year, in a strange development, the opinion of two of the three IHC judges who heard a petition seeking Imran’s disqualification for hiding his alleged daughter was uploaded on the court’s website only to be removed later.

A three-judge bench, led by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, reserved its verdict on March 30, 2023.

In a reply submitted to the court on February 1, 2023 in the matter, Imran said it was “not maintainable” on legal grounds.

In his reply submitted through lawyer Salman Akram Raja, the PTI founding chairman contended that the IHC, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, could not examine any affidavit issued by him as he had already resigned as a member of the National Assembly.

He maintained that the IHC could not proceed in this matter as he had already ceased to be a member of parliament.