NA-122 election record: ‘Returning officer can’t conduct public inspection’
Imran Khan, Election Commission issued notices on Sardar Ayaz Sadiq’s plea.
The counsel submitted that the petitioner had no objection to the public inspection of the election record, apart from the ballot papers, as under Section 45 of the Representation of the People Act of 1976. PHOTO: FILE
LAHORE:
The chief justice of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Election Commission and Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan on a petition challenging orders for the inspection of election documents before the returning officer at NA-122, Lahore.
The petitioner, National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq of the PML-N, defeated Khan to win the constituency in the general elections on May 11. The PTI chief later applied to the Election Commission to inspect the election record. On June 18, the EC accepted the application and directed Khan to send another application for the examination of documents to the returning officer concerned.
Representing the petitioner before the chief justice on Wednesday, Barrister Syeda Maqsooma Bokhari submitted that the returning officer did not have the jurisdiction to conduct the inspection.
The counsel submitted that the petitioner had no objection to the public inspection of the election record, apart from the ballot papers, as under Section 45 of the Representation of the People Act of 1976.
However, she said, the petitioner did object that the Election Commission had assigned the NA-122 returning officer to supervise the process. The Election Commission order, she said, granted the PTI chief’s request on the assumption that the returning officer had custody of the election record. But the returning officer, as per the law, had forwarded the record to the Election Commission, she said. The petitioner has been asked to respond to the application for public inspection before the returning officer, she said.
Bokhari argued that the returning officer did not have the jurisdiction to conduct the job assigned to him by the Election Commission and the court should set aside the order. She also asked the court to stay the proceedings before the returning officer.
The chief justice observed that there was no ground for interference in the process because the petitioner had admitted that the substantive relief sought by the respondent (Imran Khan) was justified. The question was whether such a public inspection was legal, he said. The chief justice issued notices to the EC and Imran Khan for September 3 to state whether there was an alternative remedy to the relief sought by the petitioner and whether the returning officer had the jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings assigned to him.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 29th, 2013.
The chief justice of the Lahore High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Election Commission and Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan on a petition challenging orders for the inspection of election documents before the returning officer at NA-122, Lahore.
The petitioner, National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq of the PML-N, defeated Khan to win the constituency in the general elections on May 11. The PTI chief later applied to the Election Commission to inspect the election record. On June 18, the EC accepted the application and directed Khan to send another application for the examination of documents to the returning officer concerned.
Representing the petitioner before the chief justice on Wednesday, Barrister Syeda Maqsooma Bokhari submitted that the returning officer did not have the jurisdiction to conduct the inspection.
The counsel submitted that the petitioner had no objection to the public inspection of the election record, apart from the ballot papers, as under Section 45 of the Representation of the People Act of 1976.
However, she said, the petitioner did object that the Election Commission had assigned the NA-122 returning officer to supervise the process. The Election Commission order, she said, granted the PTI chief’s request on the assumption that the returning officer had custody of the election record. But the returning officer, as per the law, had forwarded the record to the Election Commission, she said. The petitioner has been asked to respond to the application for public inspection before the returning officer, she said.
Bokhari argued that the returning officer did not have the jurisdiction to conduct the job assigned to him by the Election Commission and the court should set aside the order. She also asked the court to stay the proceedings before the returning officer.
The chief justice observed that there was no ground for interference in the process because the petitioner had admitted that the substantive relief sought by the respondent (Imran Khan) was justified. The question was whether such a public inspection was legal, he said. The chief justice issued notices to the EC and Imran Khan for September 3 to state whether there was an alternative remedy to the relief sought by the petitioner and whether the returning officer had the jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings assigned to him.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 29th, 2013.