The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday was told that the state could not take DNA of anybody forcibly, reported the 24NewsHD TV channel. 

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf Chairman Imran Khan’s advocate Akram Raja was arguing in Tyrian White Case in the court. He said that as per the judgment of the top court, the state couldn't 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.

A larger bench headed by Chief Justice Aamer Farooq heard the case filed by a citizen Muhammad Sajid seeking disqualification of PTI's chairman Imran Khan over not disclosing his alleged daughter Tyrian White in his nomination papers.

At the outset of the hearing, Imran's lawyer Salman Akram Raja argued that his client was asked to disclose the kids 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 kids 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 the 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.

Imran Khan had written to the ECP on March 6, that he wouldn't take oath in any constituency as MNA, he said, adding that the ECP didn't take any action on it.

He said that 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.

He said that this petition was wasting court's time and prayed the bench to dismiss the same. 

The court instructed the petitioner's lawyer to give cross-arguments in the next date of hearing and adjourned the case till tomorrow.