SC revives PTI’s electoral hopes

Top court reprimands both IHC and ECP

ISLAMABAD:

Despite facing tough times from other state institutions, the Supreme Court has again revived the hopes of the PTI.

Friday was a good day for the PTI in the apex court wherein bail was granted to both the party’s founding chief, Imran Khan, and vice chairman, Shah Mahmood Qureshi.

Similarly, the court grilled the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for not allowing a level playing field to the PTI in the next general elections.

The bench asked the ECP to address the complaints of the PTI related to the harassment of its candidates.

Both the orders by the SC have reprimanded the Islamabad High Court and ECP.

The three-judge bench, led by acting Chief Justice of Pakistan Sardar Tariq Masood, and comprising Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah, was visibly upset over the IHC for passing a lengthy judgment while rejecting the bail plea of Imran in the cipher case.

The bench also raised serious questions on conduct of the ECP in holding free and fair elections.

Despite clear directions for giving a level playing to the PTI in the elections, the ECP has withdrawn its electoral symbol of the ‘cricket bat’ terming the party’s internal polls as “illegal”.

The PTI is again eyeing the superior courts for relief. It is unclear whether the party will approach the SC or the high court.

A PTI lawyer said the party’s legal team was examining the options whether it should move the Peshawar High Court or SC against the ECP’s decision to withdraw its popular electoral symbol.

Only one bench composed of two judges will be available next week at the SC’s Islamabad Registry.

The PTI has one week to acquire a favourable decision otherwise the ECP will allot another electoral symbol to the party on January 2.

Read ECP takes back 'bat' symbol from PTI ahead of Feb 8 polls

Presently, the SC is very cautious about the institution's image as it does not want to repeat the history of general elections 2018 wherein the apex court led by former CJP Mian Saqib Nisar was accused of resorting to political engineering against the PML-N.

Lawyers are debating about the implications of SC's decision in the cipher case wherein Imran and Qureshi were granted bail.

Some lawyers are criticising the SC for affecting the prosecution’s case against the two political leaders.

However, it is a fact that despite repeated queries from the bench, the prosecution team could not point the material to establish that Imran was involved in the offence wherein he could be awarded the punishment of 10 years in jail or death penalty.

The SC, in its written order, observed that “the offences of wrongful communication of official confidential information as defined in clause (a) to (d) of Section 5(1) of the Official Secrets Act were generally punishable, under clause (b) of Section 5(3), with imprisonment for a term which might extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, and were bailable under clause (b) of Section 12(1)” of the law.

“It is only when an offence is committed in contravention of clause (a) of Section 5(1) and is intended or calculated to be, directly or indirectly, in the interest or for the benefit of a foreign power, or is in relation to any of the defense installations or affairs, or in relation to any secret official code, that it is punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Act, with death or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years. Such an offence is non-bailable and also falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC],” the order continued.

“In respect of such offences, other than the provisos to Section 497(1), bail is granted under Section 497 (2), CrPC, if it appears to [the] court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed such an offence but rather that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt," it added.

In view of the court's observations, the prosecution could not prove that both Imran and Qureshi had committed the offence punishable under clause (b) of Section 5(3) of the Official Secrets Act.

Despite all these observations, the trial court might still declare Imran as guilty.