• Commission’s order is silent on life-time or five-year disqualification
• Counsel told to remove objections to former PM’s petition against Toshakhana case verdict

ISLAMABAD: Dispelling the impression about lifetime disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan, Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah on Monday observed that law did not bar the former premier from contesting polls and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) disqualified him only on his Mianwali seat for ‘concealing’ details of Toshakhana gifts.

Hearing the petition against Mr Khan’s disqualification by the ECP, Justice Minallah observed that Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution did not put any restrictions on the ex-PM to contest election for any seat other than NA-95. The PTI chief’s disqualification was for his Mianwali seat only, the judge noted.

He also perused the said provision of the Constitution that states: “A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).” The proviso (p) of the Article said: “He is for the time being disqualified from being elected or chosen as a member of a Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or of Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being in-force.”

The remarks not only dispelled the reports that Mr Khan has been disqualified for five years or lifetime, but also ruled out that the disqualification entailed perpetual effect, particularly in relation to the upcoming contest in NA-45 Kurram district constituency.

As a consequence, many believe, he may retain the chairmanship of his party as well.

At the outset, Justice Minallah inquired about the administrative objections raised by the registrar’s office to Mr Khan’s petition.

Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, counsel for Mr Khan, told the court that the objections were related to biometric verification and provision of a certified copy of the ECP verdict in the Toshakhana case.

The counsel argued that the ECP released a short order and ‘leaked’ a detailed judgement to the media, but did not provide the certified copy despite an application moved by Mr Khan for the purpose. The ECP claimed that since one of the five members of the bench had not yet signed the judgement, it could have not been provided to Mr Khan, he told the court.

Justice Minallah advised him to have patience and wait for the detailed order as the “court cannot suspend a judgement without perusing it”.

The chief justice then pointed out to the counsel for Mr Khan that he did not even attach a signed copy of the ECP’s decision. He remarked that it never happened anywhere in the world that an “unsigned short order is challenged” before the high court.

Referring to biometric verification, Barrister Zafar argued that ex-PM Khan be exempted from this mandatory requirement as he had certain security threats. Justice Minallah remarked that if Mr Khan could not personally appear for biometric verification, there were alternative ways to complete the process through other means.

The court gave Mr Khan three days to remove the legal objections to the petition.

When Barrister Zafar requested the court to issue a direction to the ECP for provision of a certified copy of the judgement, Justice Minallah said, “This court cannot give [such] direction to any constitutional body.”

“We don’t want to set a bad precedent,” he said, explaining that there was no urgency in this matter when Mr Khan did not even want to return to the parliament. But there were political consequences of ECP’s decision, the counsel remarked.

Justice Minallah made it clear that the court had “nothing to do with politics” and reminded him that this was not the first time that a political leader was de-seated and such disqualification did not prove counterproductive in the case of other politicians.

When the counsel argued that the ECP had referred this case to a sessions judge for conducting trial against PTI’s chief, Justice Minallah said this could also take time as the sessions judge would take at least a month to issue notice to the parties after the receipt of all the record. He then advised the counsel to remove the objections from the petitions with patience since making haste would spoil the case.

Published in Dawn, October 25th, 2022