ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that in a democratic process, the mandate of the electorate demanded complete respect.

“It is not a matter of personal likes or dislikes, but the right of the people to vote [for] any candidate in accordance with their wishes,” observed Justice Qazi Faez Isa, adding that petitions based on assumptions should not be brought before the court.

The observations came during the hearing of a set of petitions challenging the acceptance of Kulsoom Nawaz’s candidature. The wife of ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif won the by-election in the NA-120 constituency to fill the seat left vacant after his disqualification.

Headed by Justice Gulzar Ahmed, the three-judge SC bench that had taken up the challenges filed by Pakistan Peoples Party’s Faisal Mir and Pakistan Awami Tehreek’s Ishtiaq A. Chaudhry, dismissed the case after the movers withdrew their petitions.

Mandate of the people demands complete respect, observes Justice Isa

The petitions challenging the acceptance of her nomination papers had become infructous after the electoral process was completed, but the complainants could approach the election tribunal concerned if they still had grievances against the process, the court observed.

The court was of the view that after PAT’s Ishtiaq Chaudhry, represented by Advocate Azhar Siddiq, was not eligible to challenge the candidature of his rival after he withdrew his own candidature during the election process.

Similarly, when the court asked Faisal Mir’s counsel, Advocate Zafar Hussain Chaudhry, how many votes his client had secured in the by-poll, the lawyer replied that he had no idea, but hastened to add that his client could have secured four to five thousand votes.

He was also unable to respond when the court asked which assets his opponent had concealed. When the counsel argued that Kulsoom Nawaz was the deputy chief executive of a company and also possessed an Iqama (work permit), the court asked him to submit a document to show that she had received that salary.

The court also rejected a request on behalf of Mr Mir for more time to place certain facts on the record, observing that the petitioner should have come up with evidence about the assets Ms Nawaz had allegedly concealed, instead of coming to the court with mere allegations.

Justice Gulzar Ahmed also observed that this case was different from the Panama Papers case — one which revolved around concealed receivables. But here, the petitioner had brought the case without any proof, the court said.

‘‘When you point a finger at someone, it should be on some basis, instead of assumptions and presumptions,’’ Justice Isa regretted and said it was up to the people to choose whichever candidate they liked.

Being a senior member of the bar, the court observed, the lawyer should argue his case on the basis of facts and the law, Justice Isa observed.

In his petition, Faisal Mir argued that his opponent had failed to submit full details of her tax returns and statements of assets and liabilities.

She concealed her assets on purpose and did not disclose a United Arab Emirates work permit that was attached with her nomination papers, therefore rendering her ineligible to participate in the by-election under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, he contended.

Published in Dawn, September 19th, 2017