SC admits Sharifs' plea for hearing

ISLAMABAD (APP) - The Supreme Court here Monday admitted for hearing the petitions filed by PML-N leaders Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif against their disqualification from holding public office.
The two were disqualified on February 25 by a three-member bench. A five-judge bench set up by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry issued notices to the concerned parties including the Federation and Election Commission. It adjourned the hearing to Tuesday.The bench, which is headed by Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, includes Justice Nasir ul Mulk, Justice Musa K Leghari, Justice Shaikh Hakim Ali and Justice Fassihuddin Ahmed.
Aabid Hassan Minto, counsel for Nawaz Sharif, arguing before the court, requested the bench to stay the operation of the previous judgment. He said that a stay order would be a proper step.
Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani inquired whether the Election Commission had issued any schedule for the bye-election in NA-123, where Nawaz Shaif had been a candidate.
Aabid Hassan Minto informed the court about the stance of Nawaz Sharif regarding the movement for restoration of judiciary and PCO judges.
He said that amid the developing situation and being a public representative having a stance regarding the post-November 3, 2007 judiciary, he did not appear before the court, which had passed a decision without hearing him.
Minto said that they had appealed for a larger bench due to biased attitude of certain judges.
On a query by the court, he said that the Lahore High Court had discussed only three points in the case while the Supreme Court raised 11 points.
The counsel said that the Returning Officer of NA-123 had accepted the nomination papers of Nawaz Sharif as nothing was found against the candidate.
Justice Nasir ul Mulk remarked that if the government was a party to the case then why it failed to produce a Presidential Order regarding indemnity as no record was produced to validate it.
Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Kasuri pleaded for constitution of an appropriate bench under Supreme Court Rules 26. He was of the view that the review petitions should be heard by that bench, which had decided the main case.
Abid Hassan Minto contended that Presidential indemnity means removal of all the consequences. If any other word was used with it, then it would have been explained in that context.
But once President grants indemnity it abolishes both punishment and conviction, he added. He also cited judicial precedents of Supreme Court of India to validate his points that once a punishment was forgiven then its consequences also were eliminated.
Khwaja Haris, counsel for Shahbaz Sharif, made technical objection over the order of election tribunal Lahore.
He also objected that the contender had no locus standi as he was not a resident of the constituency.