LAHORE, Sept 23: The Lahore High Court has issued notices to the Election Commission and all candidates for the four constituencies (NA-119 and 122 and PP-141 and 142) of Lahore for Wednesday on petitions filed by PML-N President Shahbaz Sharif and Kulsoom Nawaz against their disqualification from elections.

The notices were issued on Monday to the respondents after a full bench of the LHC allowed the plea of the Sharif family counsel for the hearing of the petitions on a priority basis.

The bench comprising Justice Javed Butar, Justice Ejaz Chaudhry and Justice Jamshed Ali also heard arguments from the counsel for the two candidates.

The bench had refused to take up the petitions on Thursday, saying it did not want to exhaust the list of petitions pending for adjudication and would hear petitioner’s arguments on Sept 25.

However, Ashtar Ausaf Ali, representing both Shahbaz and Kulsoom, pleaded before the court to take up the petitions on a priority basis. The counsel argued that petitions were of utmost importance and delay in their hearing could create a damaging political impact. He quoted the adage “Justice delayed is justice denied” in the support of his arguments for the out-of-turn hearing of the petitions.

The bench pointed out that the respondents had not been issued notice of appearance who could object later that the petitions had been heard in their absence. The counsel suggested that the court should not deliver the verdict on the same day after hearing petitioners’ arguments. Rather at least initiate the process of hearing and issue notices to the respondents for next hearing in order to give them an opportunity to plead their case, he stated.

The bench allowed the counsel’s plea and heard his arguments. Some 52 candidates for the two national and two provincial assembly seats would be summoned for Wednesday’s proceedings as respondents.

It was pleaded that the election tribunal of the LHC had disqualified both Shahbaz and Kulsoom from contesting elections on Sept 12 through a verbal order conveyed by the court staff. The counsel argued that the tribunal did not sign the written judgment till Sept 13, the date on which the tribunal ceased to exist.

According to him, he got an 11-page judgment signed by the tribunal on Sept 16. The counsel argued that since the judgment had not been signed by the tribunal members within the specified period of time, therefore, the appeals challenging the candidature of both Shahbaz and Kulsoom would deem not to have been disposed of. He contended that following such delay in affixture of signatures on the written judgment, the decisions of the returning officers concerned clearing both Shahbaz and Kulsoom for the elections would stand restored and alive.

He further contended that a letter had also been written to the EC by Hamza Shahbaz, asking it to direct the ROs concerned for enlisting the names of Shahbaz and Kulsoom in the final list of validly nominated candidates since the judgment had not been signed by the tribunal members till Sept 13. However, as pleaded by the petitioner, no reply was received from the EC nor were the ROs concerned directed to include the names of the two candidates in the final list.

It was prayed that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to question the authenticity of the signatures of the two candidates, nor were the appellants entitled to do so since they were not familiar with the signatures of both Shahbaz Sharif and Kulsoom Nawaz.

The counsel pleaded that the onus to prove the authenticity of the signatures was shifted on the candidates which they did by sending an affidavit carrying two specimen each of their signatures.

With regard to the attestation of Shahbaz and Kulsoom’s signatures on their nomination papers, it was contended that according to Section 12 (2) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1976, there was no obligation for the attestation of the candidates’ signatures on the nomination paper once the papers are filed.