LAHORE: A Lahore High Court (LHC) five-member bench on Wednesday adjourned hearing of appeals against Hamza Shehbaz’s election and oath-taking till Thursday, June 30. The bench, headed by Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan, heard the appeals, filed by Speaker Punjab Assembly Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) MPAs, and others.
As the proceedings resumed, Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan asked Ahmad Owais, counsel for the president, whether he wanted to say something about the single bench observations related to the president. Ahmad Owais submitted that the observations should be set aside as the president was head of the state.
Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi, a member of the bench, observed that how come any remarks could be given about the president if he was not heard. Justice Shahid Jamil, another bench member, asked Ahmad Owais to take five-minute time and the bench would give another opportunity to him for satisfying it on the issue. The judge further observed that the bench would hear Hamza Shehbaz’s counsel first, and asked him for submitting arguments whether the Supreme Court decision would be applicable from the past or not.
Hamza Shehbaz’s counsel submitted that as per previous judgments, the apex court verdicts were not implemented from the past unless directed by the court otherwise. He submitted that actually the election of Hamza Shehbaz had not been challenged. He submitted that different events were challenged, but the election had not been challenged so far, while concluding his arguments.
Later, PTI’s counsel Barrister Ali Zafar took to the rostrum and argued that three types of petitions were pending before the bench. He submitted that one petition was related to election, the second was related to the oath and the third one about the illegal steps. He submitted that the Supreme Court verdict would be applicable from March.
At this, the bench observed that now the entire country knows this bench’s opinion that the Supreme Court verdict would be applicable from the past.
The bench further observed that the petitioner did not approach the court immediately after the election. The petitioner approached the court after the SC verdict and its explanation was necessary, it added.
The arguments of the parties were in progress when the bench adjourned hearing till June 30.
