Tareen disqualification case: Criterion of MPs’ dishonesty to be determined, says CJP

ISLAMABAD: The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, on Thursday observed it would be determined what the criterion of dishonesty for the Members of Parliament (MPs) would be. He warned those who target the judiciary, asking them to act sensibly.

He asked the counsel for parties in the disqualification case of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Secretary General Jehangir Tareen to assist the court on the element of honesty, saying that the court would have to examine every word of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar and comprising Justice Umer Ata Bandial and Justice Faisal Arab, resumed hearing into the petition filed by PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi seeking disqualification of Jehangir Tareen for non-declaration of his assets and ownership of offshore companies.

During the course of hearing, the chief justice observed that every day new things were surfacing in the instant case, hence they were to examine every word of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, which regulates honesty. He said the counsel for the parties should assist the court and give their valuable opinion.

The court also issued a notice to the attorney general for his assistance after Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, counsel for Jehangir Tareen, during his arguments submitted that Provisions 15 (a) and (b) of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan are ultra vires to Article 73(2) of the Constitution.

Sikandar Bashir Mohmand submitted that his client could not be disqualified on the law that was ultra vires to Article 73(2) of the Constitution.“Until a declaration comes from any court of law against my client, he cannot be disqualified,” Sikandar contended.

Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed that there were allegations against Mr Tareen for buying shares through his servants and they were benamidar.The counsel, however, replied that Article 62 (1)(f) could not be apply only on cases of corruption, saying even on fake degrees, parliamentarians were disqualified.

The learned counsel contended that he had gone through many verdicts of the apex court, delivered on matter of dishonesty under Article 62 of the Constitution, saying in some cases, dictionary meaning of dishonesty was also looked up, but the apex court did not examine the element of dishonesty in any case as the court was examining in this case (Tareen) in depth.

Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, while advancing his arguments, claimed that his client had already paid a fine to the SECP in order to resolve the matter. He termed the provisions 15(a) and (b) of the SECP law total violation of Article 73(2) of the Constitution, saying his client had a right as enshrined in Article 4 of the Constitution and his client could not be disqualified on the basis of this law, Sikandar said.

“If the provisions of the said law were not proved repugnant to the Constitution, what would be stance of the learned counsel,” the chief justice asked.Sikandar, however, replied that his answer would be that neither were the nomination papers of his client challenged by anyone nor did any declaration come from any court of law against his client.

Justice Faisal Arab asked the learned counsel as to whether criminal proceedings could be initiated against his client if the provisions of SECP declared correct.The learned counsel, however, replied that the honesty of his client could be judged from the fact that he had made justification before the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan.

Justice Umer Ata Bandial observed that in some countries, insider trading was permitted, while in others it was not.The chief justice, however, said that every country has its own laws and regulations adding that the court would examine the instant case in accordance with the country’s laws. He observed if a person made a declaration before contesting the elections, and if the declaration at some point proved false, what would happen.

Whether at this stage, the matter of intention of a person could be judged, the chief justice asked the counsel. He further asked whether cheating was dishonesty, whether fraud was dishonesty and whether deception and depriving someone was dishonesty.Sikandar Bashir replied in affirmation. “Then what other illustrations could be perceived in this regard?” the chief justice asked the learned counsel.

Earlier, during the course of proceedings, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed that observations of the court did not reflect the decision but were meant for understanding the issue, adding that the media highlighted his observations which he did not give the other day.

The chief justice said that some of his friends present in the courtroom sent him text messages through Whatsapp asking for taking action on the current situation.

He said although those messages did support the stance of the senders, but he had to look into the status of the institution as well as taking into consideration, interest of the state as well as of the institution.

“There should be fair criticism on the judgments but one has to take care of the institution as it also belongs to those who criticise it,” the chief justice said adding that 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 asked the counsel for the parties to assist the court on the matter of dishonesty under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, which regulates dishonesty and adjourned further hearing until Monday.