On Wednesday, the court postponed ruling on the PTI’s appeal against the election commission‘s decision to remove its insignia and annul intra-party elections. The electoral commission, PTI, and other parties argued; therefore, it reserved its ruling.
The PHC sustained the PTI’s appeal and overturned the election commission’s December 22 decision.
Justice Arshad Ali’s two-judge bench’s written ruling overturned the electoral commission’s December 22 verdict.
Elections Act 2017 Clause 209 mandates the electoral commission to display PTI party certificates online. Article 215 requires the commission to award the PTI its bat electoral emblem.
Case hearing
The Elections Act 2008 governs intra-party elections, and Justice Ali inquired about how the party insignia was revoked under Section 215 of the Act 2009.
Sikander Bashir, the electoral commission’s attorney, said the PTI considered it a record-keeper and regularity agency for intra-party elections.
Ali Zafar told the court that the complainant wants to ban the party from elections. He said the ECP’s ruling would affect all Pakistani assemblies and residents, including the province.
Read More
The complainant’s attorney told the court that the PTI failed to hold election commission-mandated intra-party elections. All evidence was provided to the commission. The counsel said the Peshawar DC requested the intraparty poll venue on December 1.
Justice Anwar asked if PTI members impersonated others in Peshawar, where families managed political parties.
Justice Ali asked under what section the Election Commission of Pakistan took action against the party, adding that Section 209 required intraparty poll results to be disclosed within seven days.
The attorney said the electoral commission had to establish if intra-party elections were Section 208 and that the PTI desired a level playing field for general elections.
“We also asked for a level playing field for intra-party elections, which was denied,” the lawyer stated.
Why support a party without legitimate intra-party elections?
The complainant said they learned about Peshawar intra-party elections late, without publicity.
He claimed that Justice Ijaz Anwar urged him not to say such things in court because the PTI was still popular.
The lawyer wanted to discuss judicial jurisdiction and stated PTI’s application was inadmissible. The Constitution requires the election commission’s issues to be heard in Islamabad, not Peshawar.
The judge asked what the party would lose without the electoral symbol and if the counsel wanted the bat sign.
The lawyer, from the same party, wanted re-election.
Justice Ali asked when the PTI received its show-case notice after submitting Form 65 of the election result. Counsel said Dec. 7.
Justice Anwar asked where the notice violated the Election Acts 2008 and 2009. Justice Ali asked how the emblem was picked after the election.
The lawyer said PTI challenged the election commission’s order to the Lahore High Court, which asked for a PHC conclusion.
One complainant’s attorney told the court that his client was a former PTI district general secretary who learned about the intra-party elections via the media.
The lawyer said he was denied voting.
Justice Anwar said he should have called for a repoll if the electoral commission annulled intra-party elections. He said, “If you belonged to the party, you should have objected to the party symbol withdrawal, but you did not.”
“We were not given a chance in the elections for which we went to the election commission,” Qazi Jawad remarked.
Share this content:
