SHC rejects plea against Palwasha Zai’s nomination papers
The Sindh High Court rejected on Monday the plea challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s approval of Pakistan Peoples Party candidate, Palwasha Zai Khan’s nomination papers for the upcoming Senate polls.
A two-member bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Amjad Ali Sahito, was hearing the plea.
Advocate Farooq H Naek appeared before the court on Khan’s behalf. The petitioner against Khan’s nomination papers, advocate Aqib Rajper, gave arguments before the court.
When Justice Mazhar asked which clause of the election rules had been violated, Rajper maintained that he wanted to explain the Senate election process before the court.
The court asked him to first explain how Khan could be restricted from participating in the election. To this, Rajper replied that the returning officer did not hear their objection. He claimed Khan transferred her vote to Karachi from Punjab illegally.
“There are separate rules for transfer of votes. What is illegal in transferring vote to Karachi from Punjab,” asked Justice Mazhar.
Advocate Rajper contended that the legislation for the transfer of vote had been done for personal interest.
On this, Justice Sahito asked what decision was made illegally by the election tribunal. Rajper replied that Khan doesn’t own any property in Sindh. This led to Justice Sahito observing that Rajper was making irrelevant arguments before the court.
The court then inquired about the ECP’s stance on Khan’s Computerised National Identity Card. The ECP representative maintained that the CNIC was changed before the Senate election. He stated that it was the National Database and Registration Authority’s job to ensure the CNICs were correct.
The ECP representative informed the court that they had verified the address mentioned on Khan’s CNIC and the ECP did not have any objection on her CNIC or vote. Rajper contended that the vote can only be transferred from one district to another. However, Justice Mazhar remarked that the laws only mention district and the province is not stated in the law.
Naek argued that the law raises no objection on the transfer of vote from one province to another.
The court rejected the plea while remarking that this issue was not in the court’s purview.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 2nd, 2021.