LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking criminal proceedings against the lawmakers who did not disclose Toshakhana gifts in their statements of the assets and observed that the petitioner should avail the first remedy provided in the law.

Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh also rejected a challenge by the petitioner against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for acting in discriminatory by proceeding only against former prime minister Imran Khan, who has been convicted in the Toshakhana case.

Petitioner Tanvir Sarwar pleaded through his counsel, Nadeem Sarwar, saying the concealment of purchased Toshakhana articles constituted an offence under section 137 (4) read with section 167 (a) of the Election Act 2017.

He said the ECP acted in a discriminatory manner in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution by filing a complaint against Imran Khan only. He pointed out that no complaint had been filed by the ECP against any other legislator who failed to disclose the Toshakhana articles they purchased under the law.

He asked the court to order the ECP to initiate proceedings against all those parliamentarians found guilty of not disclosing the gifts in their income tax returns.

The ECP through its counsel contended that the petition was not maintainable as the complaint against former prime minister Imran Khan was filed in response to a reference sent by the National Assembly speaker under Article 63(2)(3) of the Constitution whereas no such reference had been forwarded against any other legislator.

The judge appointed Advocate Faisal Siddiqi as amicus curiae (friend of court) for his assistance on the matter.

Mr Siddiqi argued that the petition was not maintainable for the reasons that firstly, the allegations levelled by the petitioner were vague and unsubstantiated and secondly, not a single document was furnished in support of such allegations.

In his verdict, Justice Sheikh observed that the jurisdiction of the LHC under Article 199 of the Constitution is subject to certain limitations.

He emphasised that a high court may exercise its jurisdiction where it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law to any aggrieved party for redressal of its grievance raised in his petition.

The judge noted that in the instant case, the applicable law i.e. section 190 of the Election Act 2017 provides remedies of complaint before the sessions judge and appeal before the high court.

“Thus, adequate alternate remedy of complaint is available to the petitioner because of which this writ petition is not maintainable,” the judge maintained.

Regarding the allegation of discriminatory action by the ECP, Justice Sheikh observed that validity of prosecution and conviction of the former prime minister is a matter for consideration of the court of competent jurisdiction where his appeal against conviction and sentence is pending.

“As far as this court is concerned, in view of the adequate alternate remedy of complaint provided by law to the petitioner under section 190(2) of the Act, there exists no occasion for this court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus on any ground whatsoever,” the judge concluded the judgement.

Published in Dawn, December 30th, 2023