ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar on Wednesday observed that the inherited jurisdiction of the Supreme Court could not be constrained and it was empowered to examine any matter, wherever it was being heard. He observed this while heading a three-member Supreme Court bench, also consisting of Justice Umar Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab, which was hearing a petition filed by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbassi, seeking disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and Secretary General Jehangir Tareen for non-disclosure of their assets, ownership of offshore companies, and PTI being a foreign-aided party. Resuming his arguments, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, counsel for Jehangir Tareen, stated that there were confusions in the agriculture tax law of Punjab. The chief justice noted that it would be examined. Mohmand contended that his client concealed nothing and declared all his assets, including his income from agriculture of his own land, in his nomination papers submitted before the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). He argued that the court should not interfere in the tax matters of his client, which were pending adjudication before the forums concerned. He contended that the court’s observations would affect the cases being heard against his client in the Lahore High Court. The chief justice then told him that the court had the jurisdiction to interpret any law and intervene in any matter whatsoever and wherever it was being heard. Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the apex court was empowered to interpret any law. Referring to Panama Papers case verdict, the chief justice noted that the court had ruled that it could interfere and decide the matters pending with different forums whatsoever. He told the counsel that the court was hearing a plea seeking disqualification of his client and the issue involved pertained to submitting of mis-declarations before the ECP. The court told the counsel that he had so far failed to produce the record of the land and the income his client earned from his land. “Why didn’t your client declare in his nomination papers the income he earned from his leased land,” the chief justice asked, adding that he was required to declare both the incomes he earned from the land he owned and the land he got on lease. The counsel, however, could not advance any satisfactory arguments to the court queries, except contending that it seemed as if the court was conducting tax audit of his client, adding that the petitioner should take the matter to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), which was the forum concerned. The counsel also objected on the form of nomination papers, contending that the questions put in the nomination papers for reply were not clear and carried ambiguities, besides the form did not have any column to declare the leased land. Published in Daily Times, October 12th 2017.