As expected, in the wake of judgements in the case of Imran Khan (getting clean chit) and Jahangir Khan Tareen (being disqualified), heated debates have triggered in the media and elsewhere. Pakistan Tahreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has every reason to rejoice as its chairman and founder becomes the first politician who can contest the coming election with pre-clearance certificate from the highest court of fulfilling the conditions laid down in Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Imran Khan is displeased with the disqualification of Jahangir Tareen, which he says is purely on technical grounds as he provided money trail and kosher after-tax remittances to acquire property abroad through an offshore company, controlled by a trust. Disqualified Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif accuses the apex court of applying double standards. The main point of criticism of Nawaz Sharif is that he was disqualified on not receiving salary from his son, whereas Imran was acquitted even after admitting undeclared assets/income kept abroad through an offshore company, Niazi Services Limited (NSL). Imran Khan’s counter-argument is that his case cannot be compared with Nawaz Sharif’s as he never held any public office and explained all sources through which flat in London and property in Banigala were acquired. Political connotations of the cases aside, the legal position is clear that the Supreme Court in all its judgements [Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif & 9 Others PLD 2017 SC 265, Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif & 9 Others PLD 2017 SC 692, order in CRP No. 297 to 299 of 2017, CRP No. 303 of 2017, 308 to 3012 of 2017 and Constitutional Petition No. 35 & 36 of 2016 filed against Imran Khan and Jahangir Khan Tareen, respectively by Muhammad Hanif Abbasi applied the established principles of law – based on precedents. The above cases once again contradict the argument that elected members cannot be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the constitution without recording evidence, in a proceeding under Article 184(3) of the constitution. The Supreme Court in the case of Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan (2012 PLD SC 1089) while exercising jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the constitution, disqualified a person for making a false declaration on solemn affirmation in his nomination papers. Therefore, whenever there is any false declaration on oath by any public officeholder he cannot escape disqualification. This is exactly what has happened in the case of Jahangir Tareen. Jahangir Tareen has proved bona fide funds, legal transfer through banking channels and has proclaimed property held abroad in the name of children in tax declarations. But the settled law provides disqualification for false declaration even if a delinquent person offers a perfect explanation The Supreme Court has given the following categorical finding in his case: “We have gone through “The Settlement” and failed to find when or how under this document SVL or “Hyde House” were ever transferred to HSBC GUYERZELLER TRUST COMPANY (Note:- the respondent was not the shareholder of the SVL so he could not be a settlor for such share which he does/did not own in order to create a trust. He as a beneficial owner has not transferred the Hyde House to any trust. It is not the case of the respondent that the shareholder of SVL i.e. or the Director of the trust or for that matter the EFG Trust Private Limited has given the trust to itself). The respondent has also not provided/shown to us, as repeatedly mentioned above, in his written statements (in the manner of pleadings) if “Hyde House” was subsequently transferred or entrusted to the trustee named in “The Settlement” by any other document or mechanism.” It is concluded by the apex court that “SVL was created as a special vehicle for the purposes of holding a property for the respondent, it (SVL) was for the purposes of legal title and was at most a legal owner of the property as urged by the respondent’s counsel for the purposes of avoiding present or future tax liability/implication. However, once the veil of incorporation of SVL is lifted, the respondent’s face is clearly seen behind it as the true and actual owner of Hyde House”. In article [], it was opined: “Since shell companies are used as a conduit to hide wealth and/or evade taxes, corporate veil has to be lifted – the beneficial owner shall be liable to explain sources of all assets. The ‘resident’ beneficial owner of a shell company is obliged to show his/her entire interest and not mere nominal value of share(s) in the wealth statement filed under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001”. The most damaging part of the judgement against Jahangir Tareen is: “Above all the most important and crucial aspect of the matter is: that in his concise statement it is the clear and unequivocal stance of the respondent “the Answering Respondent himself has no beneficial interest therein and is simply a settlor of the trust in question”. But this assertion made in the concise statement has been belied by “The Settlement” relied upon by the respondent where he and his spouse are shown to be the ‘discretionary lifetime beneficiaries’. Schedule III of ‘The Settlement’ clearly mentions so, whereas spouse, his children and progeny shall only be ‘discretionary beneficiaries’ after the demise of the respondent as per Schedule IV. This is a blatant and shocking untrue statement on behalf of the respondent, which is not expected from an honest person. Perhaps the respondent at the time when the concise statement was filed never expected that such a deep probe would be conducted into the matter by this court and thought to get away with the camouflage and variety of covers, layers and veils of his off-shore company. But at the end, he was unable to avoid the truth”. The above categorical findings and conclusion that “respondent is held not be an “honest” person within the contemplation of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution and Section 99(1)(f) of ROPA” leave little room of success of review petition intended by PTI and/or Jahangir Tareen. No doubt, Jahangir Tareen has proved bona fide funds, legal transfer through banking channels and has proclaimed property held abroad in the name of children in tax declarations. But the settled law [Muhammad Jamil v. Munawar Khan and others PLD 2006 SC 24), Khaleefa Muhammad Munawar Butt and another v. Hafiz Muhammad Jamil Nasir and others 2008 SCMR 504) and Muhammad Ahmad Chatta v. Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema and others 2016 SCMR 763)] provide disqualification for false declaration even if a delinquent person offers a perfect, legally acceptable explanation for the source of funds for acquiring the undeclared assets. Such is the law of the land and as has been repeatedly and consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court. The writer, Advocate Supreme Court, is Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). Email: ikram@huzaimaikram.com; Twitter: @drikramulhaq Published in Daily Times, December 24th 2017.