A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice Athar Minallah heard the petition challenging the eligibility of Fawad Chaudhry.
The bench also issued notices to Election Commission of Pakistan, Ministry of Law and Justice and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) besides Fawad, directing them to submit their responses within two weeks.
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel pleaded that in the last hearing the court had directed to serve notice on the minister. However, the same was not mentioned in its written order.
At this, the bench directed the office to issue notices to Fawad Chaudhry and other respondents with the direction to submit reply before the next hearing.
The petitioner's lawyer argued that the minister had concealed his assets while submitting his nomination papers to the ECP and he should be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. Fawad did not declare land he owns in Jhelum and therefore, he is not Sadiq (truthful) and Ameen (trustworthy), he added.
Justice Athar asked which person is 'Sadiq and Ameen.' Such political cases should be resolved on political forums, he added.
The lawyer argued that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Jahangir Tareen was disqualified on the same ground. Upon that the Chief Justice remarked that Khawaja Asif of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) was also disqualified by the IHC, but later he was reinstated by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner, an anchor for a private TV channel, claimed in his petition that the minister concealed his assets when declaring them to the Election Commission of Pakistan and hence, he should be disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
"That respondent No. 1 (Fawad Chaudhry), with mala-fide intention and ulterior motives, concealed his assets and cost of assets and provided wrong and false statement of his own and spouse's assets and their costs in FORM-B (statement of assets and liabilities) along with nomination papers," said the petition.
It prayed to the court to disqualify the minister under Article 62 (1) (f) from holding a public office as he had not disclosed documents containing his proprietary information. It also requested the court to order lodging of a criminal case against him and withdrawal of all privileges granted to him as a minister.