LAHORE, Aug 6: Justice Syed Zahid Husain Shah of the Lahore High Court on Saturday permitted five alleged members of an outlawed sectarian organization to contest local elections.
Allowing five writ petitions moved by Sheikh Muhammad Farooq, Saghir Ahmad and others from Jhang, the court observed that they could not be deprived of their right to contest elections merely because they had been associated with the banned sectarian outfit —- Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan —- as members in the past. The court observed that no concrete material evidence was available against the petitioners to establish that they had been involved in activities prejudicial to the solidarity and integrity of Pakistan as members of band organization.
Following a similar decision by Chief Justice Iftikhar Husain Chaudhry, the court observed that no-one could be barred from contesting election when no substantial evidence was available. The court also observed that the prohibitory clause in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, and rules made thereunder in 2003, provided the disqualification of office-holders of the banned extremist organizations and this jurisdiction did not extend to activists and workers without sufficient material evidence.
DEPENDENT: The same court also allowed Mohammad Yaqoob and Instisar Ahmad Khan, residents of two villages of Faisalabad, to contest for union council nazim and naib nazim observing that the law did not require mentioning the property of an independent spouse in the form provided for declarations of assets.
The returning officer had rejected the candidature of Muhammad Yaqoob on the ground that he had failed to mention the assets of his wife in the declaration form of the nomination papers. He filed an appeal against the district returning officer who rejected his appeal on the ground that he had concealed the assets of dependent wife.
His counsel Chaudhry Fawwad Husain submitted that the wife, being a schoolteacher, was not dependent on the petitioner and section 152(1)(i) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance did not stipulate the declaration of assets which were in the name of an independent spouse. The petitioner, he submitted, had not concealed the assets because his wife was not dependent on him. He referred to the definition part of the ordinance which said that dependent meant a family member wholly or partially dependent on a candidate.
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.