On Tuesday, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) submitted a review appeal in opposition to the January 13 ruling of the Supreme Court that deemed its intra-party elections to be unlawful.
The Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision was requested for by the PTI to be declared “without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, illegal, and liable to be set aside” by the supreme court.
Senior attorneys Ali Zafar and Hamid Khan have filed a case in the highest court, designating the complainants and the electoral watchdog as respondents.
The petitioner contends that “the Elections Act does not give any right, power or jurisdiction to ECP to adjudicate any dispute relating to intra-party elections or refuse to give it a common symbol on the basis of any alleged irregularity in the intra-party elections” . As a result, the party emphasized that “the fundamental right to a fair trial (Article 10A) is also violated by the judgment under review.”
The party contended that the ruling rendered on January 10 by the Peshawar High Court (PHC) established that the ECP “has no jurisdiction to resolve intra-party election disputes, demonstrating that this determination can only be made following an appropriate trial in a court of law.” Consequently, the PHC’s decision ought to be affirmed.
Since ANP did not conduct intra-party elections, the PTI feels “discriminated” against by the ECP, which only fined it. Instead, the ECP awarded the emblem to ANP. Furthermore, of the “175 political parties, and throughout Pakistan’s history, ECP has never ever examined intra-party elections on the ground of any irregularity nor refused a symbol on that basis” .
The Supreme Court hearing was presided over by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, which provided further grounds for arguments. However, the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act limited the case to a five-member bench because it addressed constitutional problems, but there was a “lack of jurisdiction” in this case.
Chief Justice Isa’s ruling for the highest court held that the PTI’s merely producing a certificate claiming that intra-party elections had taken place was insufficient to prove that the elections had in fact taken place, especially since some party members were contesting this claim.
“In the present instance, not even preliminary proof was presented to indicate that any sort of election had taken place. Election-related complaints were brought to the attention of the ECP by fourteen PTI members who presented their credentials.
The writ petition dismissed these allegations by stating that the petitioners were not PTI members and hence were not eligible to run for office. However, this was a weak response, especially because the petitioners had provided proof of their lengthy affiliation with the PTI.
The Election Act of 2017’s Section 205 must be followed if a political party member is expelled, the court stated, “but no evidence in this regard was forthcoming.”
According to the ruling, neither intra-party elections nor nShould this interpretation be deemed valid, all clauses in [the Election Act, 2017] mandating intraparty elections would become meaningless, unnecessary, and superfluous.
As a result, the ruling stated that the order of the ECP dated December 22, 2023 is affirmed “because of the aforementioned and specific reasons to follow, this [ECP] petition is converted into an appeal and allowed by setting aside the impugned order and judgment of the PHC.”
omination paperwork were given to these PTI members when they sought to obtain them.
The panel noted that the location of the elections was changed to Chamkani, a village close to Peshawar, despite the PTI Secretariat’s notice stating that they would take place in Peshawar without specifying the location.
The PHC’s statement that the Election Act of 2017’s Section 215(5) was “absurd” and “uncalled for” was dismissed by the SC. It stated that no act provision had been ruled unconstitutional and that the party had not challenged any of the act’s provisions before the PHC or the Lahore High Court (LHC).
Surprisingly, neither a disclosure nor a request was made confirming that the PTI had intra-party elections, much less that they did so legally.
“The benefits accruing from holding elections could not be claimed if intraparty elections were not held, but [the] ECP would have to justify if any legal benefit to such a political party was being withheld if it had been established that elections had been held,” the statement stated.
The court also rejected the PHC’s argument that the ECP lacked the authority to review or decide on a political party’s intra-party elections.
I am a dedicated student currently in my seventh semester, pursuing a degree in International Relations. Alongside my academic pursuits, I am actively engaged in the professional field as a content writer at the Rangeinn website.