Verdict implementation: Apex court re-orders Karachi delimitation

Sindh election commission ordered to submit progress report.


Our Correspondent February 08, 2013
The court also sought a report from the Election Commission of Sindh over its verdict implementation for the delimitation of electoral constituencies.

ISLAMABAD:


The Supreme Court has once again directed the Election Commission of Pakistan to redraw the boundaries of Karachi’s electoral constituencies and conduct door-to-door verification of voters with the support of the Pakistan Army and the Frontier Constabulary (FC).


A three-judge bench, headed by the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, resumed the hearing of identical petitions on electoral reforms in the country on Thursday.

The court also sought a report from the Election Commission of Sindh over its verdict implementation for the delimitation of electoral constituencies and door-to door-verification of votes.

During the course of the proceedings, Hamid Khan, counsel for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan, claimed that the verification process of voters in Karachi had not commenced yet in accordance with the court’s directions. In response, the chief justice directed the Sindh election commission to submit an affidavit containing the number of army and FC personnel deputed to implement the court orders as well as a list of the constituencies delimited in Karachi so far.

The court observed that it would direct the defence secretary to submit a reply verifying the participation of the army in the process.

The bench also directed the Karachi commissioner to take part in the process of voter verification by supporting the law enforcement agencies.

The court has adjourned the hearing till February 13.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 8th, 2013.

COMMENTS (1)

ABCD | 11 years ago | Reply

Don't make Karachi the next Baluchistan. Keep the Chaudhrys of Supreme Court in check

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ