Admissibility of Toshakhana case: IHC issues notices to respondents in response to IK’s petition

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Wednesday, issued notices to the respondents in a petition filed by Imran Khan, chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against the admissibility of the Toshakhana case.

A single bench of Chief Justice Aamer Farooq heard the petition and sought replies from parties till next week instead of extending immediate relief to the PTI chief.

Khan moved the petition against a decision of the trial court that had declared the Toshakhana case, which was initiated against the former prime minister at the request of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), admissible.

During the hearing, Imran’s counsel Khawaja Harris contended that the trial court judge had expressed his intention, and pleaded the IHC to send the case to another judge.

He stated that the sessions court pronounced its verdict “barely within 15 minutes” after hearing arguments from the ECP, without allowing the PTI chief’s legal team to present their version.

He added that their request to postpone the hearing from July 8 to July 10 was also rejected. Haris maintained that “if a high court sends a case back to the trial court, it should be referred to a different court instead of the same court.” He argued that a judge who had already expressed a clear stance should not have been assigned the same case.

The counsel argued that the judgment dated 04.07.2023 was received by the trial judge on 05.07.2023, on which date the trial judge issued notices to the parties to appear before him on the very next day, i.e., 06.07.2023, for addressing arguments on the petitioner’s application in the light of the directions given by this court vide judgment dated 04.07.2023.

However, on the said date, it was brought to the notice of the trial judge that the counsel for the petitioner, who was to address arguments in support of his application, was not available till the 10th of July 2023 on account of personal family engagements at Lahore, and that for this reason the case may be fixed for any date after 10.07.2023. However, on 06.07.2023, the trial judge did not accede to the request of the petitioner and again fixed the case for arguments on the petitioner’s aforesaid application for the very next day, i.e. 07.07.2023.

The counsel said that on 08.07.2023, another application was filed on behalf of the petitioner’s counsel, this time submitting that the petitioner would have no objection if the counsel for the ECP may be heard first, and so as for as the arguments on behalf of the petitioner are concerned, the same may be heard on any date after July 10.

The petition added that in fact, when the case was called for hearing on 08.07.2023, the counsel, Gohar Ali Khan, ASC, appearing on behalf of the Counsel who had to address the arguments in support of the petitioner’s application, requested the trial court to hear the arguments of the counsel for the ECP, and to graciously fix the case for arguments on behalf of the petitioner on 10.07.2023 and assured the trial judge that on that date the aforesaid counsel for the petitioner will appear and advance his arguments, but the trial judge did not even accede to this request of the counsel for the petitioner.

He mentioned that the arguments of the counsel for the complainant continued from 11am till 2:40pm (with half an hour break in between), where after the trial judge retired to his chamber for 15 minutes, and then returned to the Courtroom and orally announced the impugned order.

The counsel continued that thus, at the time of the announcement of the impugned order dismissing the petitioner’s application, the trial judge had not yet written the impugned order, while it took him just 15 minutes after the conclusion of the arguments to presumably make up his mind as to what order to pass with respect to all the eight legal questions referred to him for determination by this court.

Therefore, he requested the court to declare the order of trial court dated 08.07.2023 is, illegal, without lawful authority, and has been passed in excess of jurisdiction, and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

He also prayed to the court to dismiss the complaint for having been filed by an incompetent person and in derogation of the provisions of 137 of the Election Act, 2017.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023