ISLAMABAD: The counsel for Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) secretary general Jahangir Tareen told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that his client could only be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution if it was proven that he had breached any legal obligations.

Highlighting dissimilarities between the Panama Papers case and Hanif Abbasi`s petition, Advocate Sikander Bashir Mohmand insisted that in this case, the benefit of the doubt should be afforded to his client `because everything is disclosed`, while the Sharifswere not as forthcoming.

But Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, heading the three-judge Supreme Court bench, observed that the conduct of an individual reflected dishonesty more than their intention or state of mind.

As f ar as the agricultural part is concerned, your case is not supported by reliable documentary evidence, the chief justice told the counsel.

He pointed out that the defendant had only shown stereotypical lease deeds for 18,566 acres of land, adding that the counsel was banking too heavily on sections 15A and 15B of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance to counter allegations of insider trading.

Also on Wednesday, Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked the counsel to submit individual tax returns for Mr Tareen`s children, saying that being married did not prove their financial independence, adding that through Shiny View Limited and the trust, MrTareen had essentially created an asset for his children.

But no tax was paid on the agricultural income, which was still a grey areainthecase,Jusdce Bandialnoted.

Comparing Panamagate with the case at hand, Advocate Mohmand argued that the petitioner was at pains to demonstrate similarities between the two cases, when the fact that non-disclosure of assets entailed disqualification had always been a consistent view of the Supreme Court in past cases.

The principle highlighted in the Panama Papers judgement was nothing novel, he argued, since the court had consistently invoked the principle that disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) became inevitable if irrefutable evidence regarding the violation of legal obligationsemergedthroughaninquiry.

The unfortunate aspect of the Panama Papers case was that despite repeated questioning, nothing was putonthe recordby the respondents,even though the petitioner furnished a mountain of documents against deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif documents that were later proved to be genuine through mutual legal assistance requests.

Brandishing the relatively brief petition filed by Mr Abbasi, he maintained that there was not much material available with the petitioner.

In the Panama Papers case, the court treated the Sharifs`defence as a `f airy tale`, which created further suspicions. `But here, there is no fairy tale, because we have produced actual documents,` he maintained.

Wrapping up his arguments, the counsel said that in the case against the Sharif family, the petitioner had done far more work and put up a stronger case, adding that the court could always activate its inquisitorial jurisdiction of there was even a whiffof corruption.

That was why the Supreme Court appointed a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) in the Panama Papers case, he maintained.

Pointing out further dissimilarities between the two cases, Advocate Mohmand argued that Mr Sharif was a three-time prime minister, as well as a former provincial chief minister and finance minister over the past 36 years.

He said that in that case, there was a complete apathy from the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), whose chairman had literally told the bench that he would not take any action against the former ruling family.

It was in these exceptional circumstances that a JIT was formed to probe the allegations of assets beyond known sources of income, he argued, adding that there was no such allegation in the currentcase,becauseeverythinghadbeen disclosed and there was nothing that warranted Mr Tareen`s disqualification. Therefore, infallibility or some imperfections should not be equated with dishonesty in Mr Tareen`s case,the counselsaid.

On Wednesday, the counsel admitted that his client`s wife was also a beneficiary of the UK property, adding that Mr Tareen also utilised it when he visited England. However, he maintained that neither Mr Tareen nor his children were the beneficial owners of the Hampshire property, which was why he did not disclose it in his nomination papers.

`My client is a wealthy person who f alls under the large taxpayer category and has always been put under the microscope by tax authorities,` the counsel argued, adding that the trust and the property would become an asset for Mr Tareen and his children only when it was liquidated. The court then postponed further proceedings for Nov 7.