IHC terms Tyrian White case interference in PTI founder’s life

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court has termed the Tyrian White case interference in the life of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf founder Imran Khan and said the petitioner has failed to prove whether Tyrian White is the real daughter of the PTI founder or has been under his guardianship.

The court observed that only Tyrian White reserves the legal right to enforce a foreign court’s decree of inheritance or paternity and no other person may legally do so.

A three-member larger bench of the Islamabad High Court comprising Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz ruled that the decision of the case had already been reserved, and despite the chief justice’s departure from the bench, there was a majority decision of the judges, so there was no room for further hearing.

The court relied on the majority judgment of two judges of the previous bench, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir, and issued a detailed 54-page judgment.

In the reasons for declaring the petition as not maintainable, the court observed that the petitioner could not prove that Imran Khan had ever admitted to taking care of and upbringing Tyrian.

It further said that for a writ of quo-warranto to be admissible it was necessary to bring on the judicial record such undisputed facts as would not require further explanation, inquiry or investigation.

The court wrote in the decision that the petitioner referred to the case of unilateral decree on August 13, 1997 from the Los Angeles court of the US. It said that only the same party can come to the court who wants to make the foreign court’s decree enforceable in Pakistan.

The IHC also observed that Tyrian White reserves the legal right to enforce a foreign court’s decree of inheritance or paternity, and no other person may legally do so. The petitioner is a Pakistani citizen and is not himself a party to the judgment of the US court, it remarked.

The high court observed that the petitioner sought disqualification of PTI founder Imran Khan on the basis of concealing his facts about Tyrian White in nomination papers and levelled allegations of illegal and illicit relationships against him. It said the petitioner was not an eyewitness nor could he prove the same from any recognized judicial decision.

The court further observed that the petitioner raised questions about the personal life of the PTI founder and also questioned the life of Tyrian White, which would have profound effects on the future life of the woman. It said all the accusations are against the Quran and Sunnah and unverified facts.

The court observed that under Article 199 of the Constitution, it is not authorized to give any decision on the disputed matter. The larger bench of the Islamabad High Court also expressed reservation over the reconstitution of the bench by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq in the matter despite the same having been reserved by the bench after hearing the case.

It said that when a decision has been made on a petition, the chief justice has no power to dissolve the bench and to constitute a new bench on the matter.

The court observed that changing the bench after reserving the matter would be considered an attempt to influence the court decision. It said that a dissenting opinion is a right of a judge to exercise as necessary.

The court also observed that disagreement of the members of the bench with each other is not a justification for the formation of a new bench and independence of judges cannot be taken away by administrative powers.

The IHC larger bench comprising Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz observed in the judgment that the matter was earlier heard by a larger bench headed by Chief Hustice Aamer Farooq and the matter was reserved after hearing the arguments of the counsel on the maintainability of the petition.

The court observed that Chief Justice Aamer Farooq drafted the judgment in which the petition was declared maintainable while the other members of the bench Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir declared the same as not maintainable.

It further stated that the bench had to resume for announcement of the judgment and one of the members of the bench, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, wrote a note to the CJ’s secretary and registrar and directed them to include the date of the judgment in the cause list.

The court observed that apparently, this instruction was not followed by the registrar without any reasonable reason and it is beyond understanding why the decision was not included in the cause list despite the repeated instructions of Justice Mohsin Kayani.

The court made the observation that the judgment was released on the website of the Islamabad High Court, which was also removed from the website without asking from the author of the judgment.The court wrote in the judgment that Chief Justice Aamer Farooq recused himself from hearing the case on the basis of a journalist’s tweet and ordered reconstitution of the bench while dissolving the previous larger bench for re-hearing the petition and on such bench Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani who wrote the majority judgment was not included. It said there is nothing on record that Justice Kayani had also recused from hearing the case. The IHC observed that due to such order of the CJ, the majority judgment was nullified, and though the chief justice has the power to constitute the benches, but once the bench is constituted, the chief justice cannot alter the bench. The court remarked that the bench can be changed only when the matter is referred to the CJ under a judicial order. It observed that if a member of the bench recuses himself from hearing the case, then the CJ has the power to change the bench. It said that when a decision has been made on a petition, the CJ has no power to dissolve the bench and to constitute a new bench in the matter.