July 01, 2008	Tuesday	Jamadi-us-Sani 26, 1429

ISLAMABAD, June 30: The two petitioners on whose plea the Lahore High Court disqualified PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif from contesting the by-election informed the Supreme Court on Monday that the federal government’s challenge to the high court order was based on political exigencies rather than enforcement of law.

In their written replies to the federal government’s appeal against the high court judgment, Syed Khurram Ali Shah, a voter, and Noor Elahi, an independent candidate, requested the apex court to dismiss the appeal and impose penalty because the federal government had not come up with clean hands and, therefore, was not a necessary or an aggrieved party in the matter.

The replies were fixed before a three-member bench comprising Justice Mohammad Moosa K. Leghari, Justice Syed Zawwar Hussain Shah and Justice Mohammad Farrukh Mahmud hearing the federal government’s appeal against the LHC decision.

The LHC, acting on the petitions of Khurram Shah and Noor Elahi, had disallowed Nawaz Sharif from contesting the by-election, but kept pending a separate petition against the candidature of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif until an election tribunal decides about his nomination.

The Supreme Court last week ordered the postponement of by-elections in the NA-123 Lahore constituency.

On Monday, the apex court bench decided to hear separate petitions moved in Lahore by the Punjab assembly speaker and the provincial government through its chief secretary on the same matter, along with the main appeal.

Advocate Ashtar Ausaf and Advocate General of Punjab Khawaja Haris have instituted the petitions.

The case was adjourned for two weeks after Deputy Attorney General Raja Abdur Rehman sought time to answer points raised in the replies, although Advocate Ahmed Raza Khan Qasuri, the legal counsel for Khurram Shan and Noor Elahi, opposed the request.

It was stated in the replies that elections were always a private matter between the winning and losing candidates and, therefore, the government should not enter into an arena with a ‘partisan spirit’ to demonstrate political sympathy.

“Issues raised in the appeal involve interpretation of Section 52 of the Representation of People Act 1976 and Article 225 of the Constitution (election dispute) since the instant case revolves around the pre-election disqualification of Nawaz Sharif. The distinction between ‘dispute as to election’ and ‘dispute as to candidature’ needs to be explained,” the replies said.

Referring to the applications of Mehr Zafar Iqbal and Shakil Baig, who have requested to be parties in the appeal, the replies said that similar requests had been dismissed by the high court — a fact which had been concealed from the apex court. Moreover, the applicants have mentioned themselves as a registered political party, but no certificate of registration has been attached.

The replies said that the jurisdiction of the apex court was discretionary in nature and, therefore, he who sought equity must come with clean hands as held in a number of judgments of the apex court.

The provisions of law relating to the election matter are special in nature and start with words ‘a person’ as mentioned in Article 62 (qualification for membership of the parliament) and 63 (disqualification for membership of the parliament), Section 99 of Representation of Peoples Act 1976 and Article 8 D (1) (2) of Conduct of General Election Order 2002.

Since the qualification of a candidate to contest the election was purely a personal matter of the candidate which could not be termed a matter of public importance, therefore there was no question of proper or necessary party and the petitioner had no locus standi to file pleas, the replies contended.