The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday sought arguments from lawyers pertaining to the court’s jurisdiction in petitions challenging the qualification of former president Asif Ali Zardari and Minister for Information & Broadcasting Chaudhary Fawad Hussain as member Parliament.
The hearing of the cases was adjourned till November 4.
Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf (PTI)’s Khurrum Sher Zaman had filed a petition against Asif Ali Zardari, alleging him for concealing his assets established in New York. His lawyer Faisal Chaudhary appeared before the court and informed the bench that he would also contest the case of Chaudhary Fawad Hussain. The lawyer said that he was not arguing on case’s merit now rather he need time to study it.
Chief Justice Athar Minallah questioned that why this court should hear disqualification cases against elected members of Parliament. If the public used to elect such persons despite knowing everything then why the court should interfere into the matter, he observed, adding that there were also alternate forums available in the country for such complaints.
The court asked why not the Parliament itself prepared a mechanism of accountability of its members. It had been proved that the courts’ decisions in such matters had different effects, Justice Minallah remarked.
Chief justice said that this court had disqualified a member Parliament but later on his appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court. The people of concerned constituency were remained deprived of representation for a certain time.
Chief Justice Athar Minallah remarked that the Prime Minister elected from five constituencies but the court also denied a petition against him.
The court said that serving only notices to respondents would also have negative impacts in such cases. Every institution has accountability system then why not the Parliament set up its own mechanism to view such matters, the bench asked. The chief justice remarked that the cases of poor people were more important for this court. Justice Minallah said that his court would pass an order on next hearing regarding the above two cases.
The bench instructed the lawyers to convince it with arguments that why it should hear such cases. The court sought arguments regarding its jurisdiction and adjourned the case till November 4.
