45
DURING the past couple of years, there have been a number of high-profile cases and landmark judgements that have set important precedents redefining the meaning of moral probity in public life.
On Monday, the Islamabad High Court did the same, not through a verdict but by dismissing a petition asking that Prime Minister Imran Khan be disqualified for concealing his alleged parentage of a child born out of wedlock.
The two-judge division bench admonished the petitioner, a habitual litigant who happens to be the spokesman of the Lal Masjid-affiliated Shuhada Foundation, for neither understanding the law nor Islamic teachings about respecting privacy. IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah also warned him that he would be fined if he continued to file frivolous litigation that wasted the resources of an already overburdened judiciary.
It is high time that a line was drawn under this matter.
Read more: Pakistan is yet to differentiate between sin and crime
Over the years, it has repeatedly been dredged up by those seeking to embarrass and malign Mr Khan, and has probably also caused distress to the young lady in question.
No doubt, the current premier sometimes adopts gratingly sanctimonious airs, but those who take issue with his politics must counterattack on those grounds alone.
Whether the allegation in the petition is true or not is immaterial. Everyone has the right to a private existence and a reasonable expectation that information of a personal nature will not be politicised to score cheap points.
There is in conservative societies a strong tendency to stand in moral judgement on others, and politicians are after all a reflection of the society to which they belong.
The court has rightly drawn a distinction between public and private life. Many a skeleton undoubtedly rattles in the cupboards of our public functionaries.
However, as long as this baggage does not violate the public trust, or impinge on the individuals’ ability to carry out their responsibilities, or contribute to a hostile work environment for colleagues, the public should look the other way.
Published in Dawn, January 23rd, 2019
Read more
IHC says Tyrian White's parentage a 'private matter', throws out disqualification petition against PM
Why women moral police women
Is celebrating love not a part of our culture?
Six years in a sexless marriage taught me how badly we need to talk about sex
Campus diaries: Forbidden friendships in Pakistan’s universities
BEING SINGLE IN PAKISTAN
On DawnNews
Comments (45) Closed
Jan 23, 2019 07:36am
Yes, we are looking the other way.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 07:57am
It would mean monetary corruption is not OK but moral corruption is just fine.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 08:15am
So why a person was disqualified for hiding third marriage?
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 08:22am
Appreciate court's landmark decision. Excellent.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 08:34am
Question, based on this decision people can hide their second and third wives!
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 08:35am
@Iftikhar ALi Khan, It was not a decision, since the court refused to hear arguments.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 08:39am
High time , good judgement.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 08:43am
Prime minister of Pakistan is not an ordinary citizen as he is holding the highest office in the land and is answerable to the people. He is a public figure and leader so I don’t agree that it was a personal matter for a prime minister but can be for any other ordinary citizen.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:11am
No one can argue politics need to be clean. However this raises a few points, especially since sadiq and ameen is part of the constitution. Moral responsibility for one, if true is there some kind of child support? More so, can this information be used by someone or a state to compromise his duties and obligations?
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:14am
Didn’t a PPP MNA / MPA was disqualified because he didn’t declare his third wife.
Shouldn’t that be reversed based on this call by IHC. How many wives one have is definitely more private.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:19am
An appropriate decision. The infamous petitioner is already warned not to make scandalous insulting petition in future.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:22am
Yeah but if this was Nawaz Sharif then case would not only be accepted but be heard on day to day basis.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:26am
Well said, Ed
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:26am
A few years back the Speaker of Assembly in Singapore had to resign since he was having extra marital relations with a lady. He was considered morally unfit for the job and had to resign. Leave up to Pakistani nation to judge where our morality stands?
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:28am
The following conclusion, of the editorial, makes a lot of practical sense:
"...as long as this baggage does not violate the public trust, or impinge on the individuals’ ability to carry out their responsibilities, or contribute to a hostile work environment for colleagues, the public should look the other way."
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:49am
@What about me, The main argument was that a ruler's private life can be questioned.The issue has aleady been provided in the Constitution and any matter before 5 years cannot be challenged.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:50am
Absolutely wrong decision. Agree private life of a private individual is nobody's business or concern, but private life of a public individual holding a very high public office and a member of NA is everybody's concern. This is a universal law practiced in every democratic country. Private life of a politician is subject to scrutiny by the people.Moreover what about the requirement of an assembly member to be sadiq and ameen under Art 62 f? Isn't that a private matter? In Pakistan so many politicians and assembly members have been disqualified because of their blemishes in their private lives. Why IK should be an exception?
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:54am
Has a line been drawn between public and private life? We certainly hope so.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:58am
@atta rehman, No one cares, what you agree with.
Its high time you stop interfering in Pakistan's affairs and focus on your own country.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 10:02am
When citizens private life is effected by actions taken by the prime minister & his government than citizens should have the right to judge prime Minister's private life as their leader.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 10:15am
Now, if Prime Minister Khan could legitimately knock up the economy so as it will give
birth to a bouncing bundle of prosperity... Go Khan go!
Gordon D. Walker
Canada
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 10:26am
A public figure does have a private life,but than his or her private life to become public.Now to set the matter at rest once for all , court could have asked for DNA test of IK.
There was a similar case of a prominent Indian politican ,who was ordered to go for DNA . politician then accepted this boy as his child.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 10:36am
Well said, much needed distinction drawn!
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 11:47am
outstanding remarks given by courts, that sort of frivolous petition should banned forever and punishment should given to accused. Couple of the days earlier a girl enrolled petition against Donal trump, and the accused alleged him that she is the daughter of Trumph, and asked to court to send her back to US. Nonsense people, the question arises in mind why that girl without wedlock slept with IK, firstly the girl should punishment 4 tat sin and crime. these kind of petition r enrolled 4 scoring and cheap publicity.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 12:04pm
But how can you define public and private life in litigation, and can you stop law enforcement agencies from putting private questions during investigations?
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 12:45pm
What happened to being sadiq and amin
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 01:01pm
There are many types of corruptions. A person involving in corruption of whatever type is considered dishonest. Can a dishonest person stay as a leader of a country?
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 01:50pm
@nazir, certainly can not. Its against the law. Court should reconsider its decision and judge based on merits of the case and not on who is filing the petition because its the message not the messenger that should be taken notice of.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 01:56pm
It is not public or private life. It is all about telling the truth or lying.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 02:03pm
In which civilization is it Sadiq and Ameen to hide this information?
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 02:31pm
Good decision..
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 02:46pm
@Attorney Tausif Kamal,
As you are attorney, are you going to file a review petition, or just comment on this forum is enough?
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 04:35pm
@Gordon D. Walker,
Always decent and sensible comments from Canada. I wish some mentally challenged trolls from our neighbourhood could learn from you.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 09:44pm
Very bad decision.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 10:23pm
A very nice editorial review on the public policy.
Recommend
0
Jan 23, 2019 11:22pm
@Attorney Tausif Kamal, Challenge it.
Recommend
0
Jan 24, 2019 01:25am
@Attorney Tausif Kamal, I respect your thoughts but there has to be a line drawn between public and private life. The lines are most distinct for when a person is an ordinary citizen and more blurred for when a person is a public office holder (when he has more moral responsibility)... Given this case relates to a time when IK was NOT a PM, his right to a private life was more distinct, and so I think the courts got it right.
Recommend
0
Jan 24, 2019 02:20am
Articles 62-63 need to be defined and fine-tuned to make it clear what sadiq-amin (honest and trust worthy) means in the law. Privacy of an individual is sacred; and so is fair and equitable implementation of the law. Protest against the bad law, and its arbitrary implementation, and then plead for respect of privacy.
Recommend
0
Jan 24, 2019 03:45am
Law and constitution bends to appease those in power, it seems.
Recommend
0
Jan 24, 2019 05:48am
IHC is always being nice. They need to get tough with the corrupt and see the difference between slander and facts.
Recommend
0
Jan 24, 2019 06:56am
Excellent decision. Actually in cases like these, the real corruption is shown on the part of our society that feels entitled to pry into the private lives of others and to make moral judgements. I bet a lot of the people who disagree with the court's comments also heckled IK for getting married three times - as if that's anybody's business either.
All I care about is what PMIK does with my vote, and with my taxpayer's money. He could actually be much, much more questionable in his private life and I absolutely could not care less.
Recommend
0
Jan 24, 2019 06:58am
The relevant point here is that it is not just a personal matter but it also happened decades ago, not during IK's term as PM. The petitioner is not the affected party and should not be allowed to raise frivolous issues.
Recommend
0
Jan 24, 2019 09:06am
What a mischievous line " public should look the other way"!
Yes indeed, when come across ,we should just look away.Simple.
Recommend
0
Jan 24, 2019 10:01am
A great judgment by the Honourable Chief Justice of IHC. The Judge has spoken through his judgment and high time the Court reinvented laws through their Judgment to bring in line with the present Times, the Constitution by itself being insufficient to recreate new laws. England does not have a constitution and it is the Judges who created laws which has stood the times. The Judge should be commended to have created a law and should be ingrained as a constitutional law. Bravo
Recommend
0
Jan 30, 2019 04:06pm
This does not concern anyone!
Recommend
0
