Forged degree case: Sumaira Malik challenges life ban on contesting polls
Review petition claims SC violated fundamental rights.
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Sumaira Malik. PHOTO: SANA
ISLAMABAD:
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Sumaira Malik has challenged a Supreme Court decree that barred her from contesting polls for life on charges of forging her degree of graduation.
The petitioner has filed a review petition through her counsel Asma Jahangir against SC’s October 28, 2013 judgment that slapped a life ban on her contesting future elections.
The applicant has requested the SC that in view of the injustice and jurisdictional overreach the review petition be heard by a larger bench.
According to the review petition neither the university authorities nor the election tribunal had arrived at a correct conclusion in view of the evidence produced.
The counsel for applicant Asma Jahangir contended that the court’s observations are in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner including Articles 10 (A), Article 13, Articles 25 and her right to lead a life with dignity.
It also questioned whether the Supreme Court had not erred in travelling to an inquisitorial jurisdiction which was applied in very rare cases and special jurisdictions.
“The court has based the judgment on the ground that signatures and photographs of the petitioner on various documents on comparison shows that they are not similar with each other. However, nowhere it has been mentioned that all those signatures and photographs do not belong to the present petitioner,” it said.
The review petition stated that the law does not grant the powers to court to impose a lifelong penalty on the petitioner, particularly as other more serious offences for disqualification of candidates have been given limited periods of debarring.
The applicant says that the Supreme Court has deprived her and her constituency of the basic fundamental right to take part in political activities and to choose a representative of their choice and as such debarring for life on surmises violates the rights of that constituency, too.
“Has the Supreme Court rightly interpreted Article 62(1) (f) by applying punishment beyond what the law stipulates and without conviction or a judgment passed against the petitioner by a competent court – although the petitioner insists that no malpractice was carried out,” the review petition questioned.
The petition stated that it was the court’s mere presumption that the husband of the petitioner influenced the university authorities with no evidence to support it.
It was also told that the petitioner had requested the court to summon the whole record of the university and the concerned officials but also offered herself for comparison of the photographs with her face and comparison of her handwriting with the handwriting specimens obtained by the university.
“Such failure has serious bearings on the issues raised but not considering the same by the court has led to grave miscarriage of justice to the present petitioner. Thus such failure was an error apparent on the face of record warranting review.”
Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2014.
Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader Sumaira Malik has challenged a Supreme Court decree that barred her from contesting polls for life on charges of forging her degree of graduation.
The petitioner has filed a review petition through her counsel Asma Jahangir against SC’s October 28, 2013 judgment that slapped a life ban on her contesting future elections.
The applicant has requested the SC that in view of the injustice and jurisdictional overreach the review petition be heard by a larger bench.
According to the review petition neither the university authorities nor the election tribunal had arrived at a correct conclusion in view of the evidence produced.
The counsel for applicant Asma Jahangir contended that the court’s observations are in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner including Articles 10 (A), Article 13, Articles 25 and her right to lead a life with dignity.
It also questioned whether the Supreme Court had not erred in travelling to an inquisitorial jurisdiction which was applied in very rare cases and special jurisdictions.
“The court has based the judgment on the ground that signatures and photographs of the petitioner on various documents on comparison shows that they are not similar with each other. However, nowhere it has been mentioned that all those signatures and photographs do not belong to the present petitioner,” it said.
The review petition stated that the law does not grant the powers to court to impose a lifelong penalty on the petitioner, particularly as other more serious offences for disqualification of candidates have been given limited periods of debarring.
The applicant says that the Supreme Court has deprived her and her constituency of the basic fundamental right to take part in political activities and to choose a representative of their choice and as such debarring for life on surmises violates the rights of that constituency, too.
“Has the Supreme Court rightly interpreted Article 62(1) (f) by applying punishment beyond what the law stipulates and without conviction or a judgment passed against the petitioner by a competent court – although the petitioner insists that no malpractice was carried out,” the review petition questioned.
The petition stated that it was the court’s mere presumption that the husband of the petitioner influenced the university authorities with no evidence to support it.
It was also told that the petitioner had requested the court to summon the whole record of the university and the concerned officials but also offered herself for comparison of the photographs with her face and comparison of her handwriting with the handwriting specimens obtained by the university.
“Such failure has serious bearings on the issues raised but not considering the same by the court has led to grave miscarriage of justice to the present petitioner. Thus such failure was an error apparent on the face of record warranting review.”
Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2014.