The Supreme Court (SC) disposed of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's (PTI) plea on Wednesday challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) revocation of its electoral symbol 'cricket bat' after the party withdrew its petition.
A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, heard the appeal.
During the hearing, CJP Isa inquired of Barrister Gohar who he was after the party chairman approached the courtroom podium expressing the intention to withdraw the plea.
The CJP asked in what capacity was Gohar making the request when lawyer Hamid Khan had identified himself as the petitioner's counsel at previous hearings.
Justice Isa then turned to Khan, asking if he was indeed the lawyer in the case. He said it was important to note the correct counsel, in case someone later contested the withdrawal. At this, Khan endorsed Barrister Gohar's decision to withdraw the appeal.
Responding to the CJP's inquiry about what PTI counsel Ali Zafar's stance was regarding the withdrawal, Khan explained that there was no objection to it from Zafar either. He said he was at the Peshawar High Court (PHC) for the hearing of the same matter.
Addressing the media after the hearing, PTI chairman Gohar stated that the party's petition in the apex court had become ineffective as the case related to the symbol was ongoing at the PHC. He expressed hope that the PHC decision would be in the PTI's favour.
Alleging irregularities in the PTI's intra-party elections, the election commission had last month declared the party's internal polls null and void and withdrew the party's iconic symbol the 'cricket bat'.
PTI's symbol revoked
Previously, barristers Zafar and Gohar apprised the PHC that the ECP had declared the PTI's intra-party election null and void on December 22 and withdrew the bat symbol.
Read PTI to knock at SC doors to reclaim ‘Bat’
“The Election Commission has exceeded its authority, as it is not a trial court and there are several decisions of the Supreme Court on record in this regard.”
They said that the intra-party elections were held in Peshawar on December 2 and the ECP itself declared the intra-party polls as valid. “However, it has now been objected that when the chief election commissioner was being appointed, Umar Ayub was not the general secretary of the party, therefore he was not authorised.
“Besides, according to the election laws, they should have taken this approval from the Federal Council.”
They said when the ECP itself was declaring the intra-party election valid, then how could they object to it.
“The fact is that the election has been transparent because if there is even a panel in it, it will be considered legal.”
ECP lawyer Mohmand apprised the court that along with the election laws, the Constitution had also given various responsibilities to the commission, which included conducting transparent and timely elections. “The Election Commission can issue instructions to a political party, therefore it has the authority to declare intra-party elections invalid.”
He said that this was not the delisting of any political party. “If the delisting is a caucus, it will have to go directly to the Supreme Court. It is very clear in Rule 157 that if any unfair matter comes to the notice of the Election Commission, it can annul it and options are available.”
He said that why the party which could not bring transparency in its intra-party election was raising objection against the ECP. “If the Election Commission does not have the power of scrutiny, then how can it continue to exist?”
1714129906-0/Clint-Eastwood-(1)1714129906-0-270x192.webp)
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ