The Lahore High Court building. – File Photo

LAHORE: Lahore High Court Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Thursday sought details of the Supreme Court orders regarding the suspended legislators over dual nationality issue from Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) by August 3.

The chief justice passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Faisal Ilyas Sadiq through his counsel Saif-ul-Malook seeking disqualification of MPA Rana Asif over dual nationality.

Earlier, the ECP through its counsel filed a reply in the matter and also submitted the Supreme Court order in Farrah Isphani case.

The petitioner counsel also submitted Canadian act 1985 and oath of allegiance under the said act.

However, the court observed that the American and Canadian oaths of allegiance were different. Therefore, the SC order in Farrah Isphani case could not be applicable in Rana Asif case, the court added.

But, the court observed that Canadian passport could be issued to only Canadian citizen and respondent MPA admitted that he had Canadian passport. Therefore, he was a Canadian citizen, the court observed.

The court was informed that the Supreme Court had suspended memberships of many legislators who had nationality of United Kingdom and European countries other than America.

The court directed the commission to submit details of SC orders regarding suspended legislators over dual nationality issue till August 3.

The court also reprimanded petitioner counsel over non-cooperation.

The petitioner, in his petition, submitted Rana Asif was a Muslim but elected as Member, Provincial Assembly (MPA) of the Punjab in general election 2008 against one of the seats reserved for non-Muslims.

The petitioner expressing concerns over dual nationality of Rana Asif pleaded the court to issue directions for disqualification of respondent MPA.

It is pertinent to mention that Rana Asif in his reply had admitted that he had Canadian passport but he was not citizen of the Canada as the status was revocable.

Therefore, he could not be disqualified under 63 (1), (C), the respondent MPA contended.