Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Mian Saqib Nisar on Thursday observed that the court will interpret the term ‘honesty’ and examine every word of Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution.

Hearing a petition filed by PML-N leader Hanif Abbassi for disqualification of PTI Chairman Imran Khan and Secretary General Jahangir Tareen, the court asked the counsels for the parties in the disqualification case of Tareen to assist it on the element of honesty and give their valuable opinion, as it wanted to examine every word of Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution in depth for an authoritative definition.

The court also issued notice to the attorney general for assistance after Tareen’s counsel Sikandar Bashir Mohmand argued that Section 15 (a) and (b) of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) were ultra vires to Article 73 (2) of the constitution.

The chief justice observed that every day new things were surfacing up in the case, thus the court wanted to examine every word of Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution, which regulates honesty.

Resuming his arguments, Mohmand submitted that his client could not be disqualified on a law that was ultra vires to the constitution. The chief justice observed that there were allegations against Tareen of buying shares through his servants and they were benamidaar. Mohmand stated that Article 62 (1)(f) could not be applied only on cases of corruption. He said he had gone through many verdicts of the apex court delivered on the matter of dishonesty under Article 62 of the constitution, adding that in some cases, dictionary meaning of dishonesty was also looked in but the apex court did not examine the element of dishonesty in any case as the court was examining in the case of his client.

He contended that his client had already paid a fine to the SECP in order to resolve the matter.

He said his client has every right enshrined in Article 4 of the constitution, adding that since the law was itself unconstitutional, thus his client could not be disqualified on its basis. “If the provisions of the said law were not proved repugnant to the constitution, then what would be your stance,” the chief Justice asked. Sikandar replied that his answer would be that neither nomination papers of his client were challenged by anyone nor any declaration came from any court of law against him.

Justice Faisal Arab asked the counsel as to whether criminal proceedings can be initiated against his client if the provisions of SECP are declared correct. Mohmand then stated that the honesty of his client could be judged from the fact that he had made justification before the SECP. “In some countries, insider trading is permitted, while in others it is not,” Justice Faisal Arab noted. The chief justice, however, said that every country has its own laws and regulations, adding that the court will examine the instant case in accordance with our country’s laws.

He observed that if a person makes a declaration before contesting the elections and if the declaration at some point proves false then what would be its consequences. “Whether at this stage, the matter of intention of a person could be judged, he asked, adding that whether cheating, fraud deception and depriving someone of his rights was dishonesty.”

The counsel replied in affirmative. “Then what other illustrations could be perceived in this regard,” the chief justice further asked.

During the hearing, the chief justice noted that the observations of the court does not reflect the decision, but meant for understanding the issue and the matter in hand, adding that media highlighted his observations which he did not give the other day.

He said some of his friends present in the courtroom send him text messages through AhatsApp asking for action on the current situation. He said although those messages supported the stance of the senders, but he has to look into the status of the institution as well as taking into consideration the interest of the state.

There should be fair comment on the judgments, he noted, adding there was a dire need to settle various issues in the society for which the court and judges should be given respect.

Meanwhile, the court adjourned further hearing till October 23.

Published in Daily Times, October 20^th 2017.