Imran Khan’s Disqualification Plea Admissible For Allegedly Hiding His Daughter

The decision on the admissibility of Imran Khan’s disqualification plea for allegedly not disclosing his daughter Teriyan in the nomination papers has been reserved by the Islamabad High Court.

The larger bench, headed by Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court Aamir Farooq and comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiani and Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, is hearing the petition.

The petitioner’s lawyer, Muhammad Sajid Hamid Ali Shah, and Imran Khan’s lawyers, Salman Akram Raja and Abuzar Salman, appeared in court today.

According to the petitioner’s lawyer, Imran Khan failed to disclose the name of his alleged daughter in the affidavit submitted to the Election Commission.

As a result, the petitioner argued that Imran Khan could not continue to serve as the party chief. The lawyer further stated that all the relevant facts for Imran Khan’s disqualification are already mentioned in the petition, and Imran Khan has not responded.

During the hearing, Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court Aamir Farooq noted that Imran Khan had neither denied nor accepted anything, and the court is still considering the petition’s admissibility.

Also Read:  Lawyers Hasan Niazi And Raja Shakeel Zaman Released On Bail In Zul Shah Case

According to lawyer Hamid Ali Shah, Imran Khan had disclosed the names of Bushra Bibi, Qasim, and Salman in the affidavit, but he did not mention his alleged daughter Teriyan. Imran Khan claimed that his sons are not financially dependent on him and live with their mother, which is guaranteed under the law.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that even though the petition is against the party leader, it is maintainable as false information in an affidavit is disqualified under section 62 1F according to court decisions.

When the court asked what would happen if the affidavit was false, lawyer Hamid Ali Shah replied that Imran Khan would be disqualified from being a member of the assembly and the party head. The court is still considering the admissibility of the petition.

The court expressed dissatisfaction with the Election Commission’s lawyer and reminded them that they were only hearing the matter of admissibility.

The Election Commission’s lawyer requested permission to present documents. Still, the court questioned why they had not done so earlier and suggested that the Election Commission may face a heavy fine for their behavior.

The lawyer of the Election Commission explained that they had previously dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence.