SC jurisdiction cannot be constrained, observes chief justice

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction cannot be constrained. Even if a case is being heard somewhere else, the apex court cannot be restrained from examining it. 

This was stated by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar on Wednesday as the three-member bench heard the petition filed by the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi seeking the disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Jahangir Tareen.

The chief justice was responding to Tareen's counsel's argument that the ongoing case will have an effect on a reference under way in the Lahore High Court against his client. 

Presenting his arguments, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, Tareen's counsel, informed the court that his client has declared all his assets. 

He argued that the bench is conducting a tax audit of his client, saying that the petitioner wants to waste time and should be told to take the case to the Federal Board of Revenue. 

Justice Umar Ata Bandiyal remarked that they are conducting disqualification proceedings at the core of which is the issue of misdeclarations in election nomination forms.  

When Mohmand objected to the questions in the forms for the electoral nomination papers, the court said it will examine the form and see if the objections hold true.

However, the bench observed that regardless of the 'objections', all land holdings should have been mentioned in the form. 

At the last hearing on Tuesday, Tareen's counsel failed to submit the lease record of agriculture land owned by the leader, citing a shortage of time as the reason.

He informed the bench that 18,500 acres were acquired by his client in 2010 on a lease. The counsel further said Tareen grows sugar, mangos, and cotton on his farms and then set up a sugar mill in 2002.

Mohmand added that the PTI leader has been an agriculturalist since 1978.

The chief justice remarked that the lease agreements are not registered and failed to mention where and how much the land in question is.

"You need to satisfy us that the person from whom land was taken on lease was the owner of the land. We want to see the record of the revenue department first, as only that will tell the situation on the ground," the chief justice observed.

Justice Bandial had observed that suspicion is arising that the land may have been procured in someone else’s name.

At an earlier hearing on October 5, the bench, while observing discrepancies in Tareen's assets, had sought the record of the 18,564 acres of land.