Tyrian White case: State cannot take DNA of anybody forcibly, says Imran’s lawyer

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday adjourned the hearing till Thursday on a petition seeking disqualification of PTI Chairman Imran Khan for not disclosing his alleged daughter Tyrian White in his nomination papers.

A larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, heard the case filed by a citizen Muhammad Sajid.

At the outset of the hearing, Imran’s lawyer Salman Akram Raja argued that his client was asked to disclose the children who were financially dependent on him.

Justice Mohsin Akhter Kayani asked whether it was not the right of the public to know who were the family members of their representative.

He said that it was not essential to have own children for guardianship, adding that a father was not responsible if the children were not his dependents.

The lawyer also gave a reference of a judgment of the top court, adding that a similar case was terminated on the same grounds.

The lawyer said that this matter was of 1992 and the affidavit was submitted in 2018. Tyrian White was the owner of assets worth millions of dollars, he said, adding that she was not the dependent of his client.

Salman Akram Raja said that this court had also dismissed identical cases in the past. He said that the decision of California court was one-sided.

The lawyer said that as per the judgment of the top court, the state could not take DNA of anybody forcibly, adding that it could be done on one’s own will.

He said that the petition was not maintainable as his client was not a public office holder this time. Imran Khan had written to the ECP on March 6, that he would not take oath in any constituency as

MNA, he said, adding that the ECP didn’t take any action on it. One shouldn’t be called a public office holder until he took the oath of office. There were also no proofs that Tyrian was dependent of his client, he said. This petition was wasting courts time and prayed the bench to dismiss the same, the counsel said. The court instructed the petitioner’s lawyer to give cross-arguments on the next date of hearing and adjourned the case.