Why does PTI desire a bat symbol? PHC judge queries attorney

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was questioned by the Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday about why it was adamant about having a bat as its electoral symbol for the upcoming elections on February 8.

“Why are you insisting on getting bat as an election symbol?” Barrister Ali Zafar, the party’s attorney, was questioned by the judge.

The judge’s question came during the hearing of PTI’s appeals disputing the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) ruling declaring its intra-party election to be invalid and requesting the restoration of its electoral symbol, the bat.

In response to the judge’s query, the attorney stated that the electoral symbol allotted to one party would not be distributed to other parties.

The political party’s identity serves as the election emblem. “People lack education, so they won’t know which political party to support,” Barrister Zafar continued, adding to the court’s knowledge that the party has used a bat as its emblem for the previous two elections.

He went on to say that if PTI does not receive a certificate, they will not be allowed to participate in the elections. In addition, he brought up a ruling from the Supreme Court on the election emblem.

He was asked to provide a copy of the ruling from the highest court by the court.

Barrister Zafar, the PTI’s attorney, informed the court earlier in the day that the elections for his party were carried out in accordance with the Constitution.

“We carried out party elections in compliance with the Constitution,” the attorney declared.

He went on to say that the ECP had ruled the party’s elections invalid and had requested that they be held again in 20 days. The attorney further claimed that the party submitted Form 65 and that it followed the ruling of the electoral commission.

“14 objections, according to the Election Commission, have been received. We stated that the objectors seek reelection, but they are not party members,” he continued, emphasizing that the party had been provided with thirty questions about the issue.

It should be mentioned that Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Arshad Ali, two members of the PHC bench, are hearing the PTI’s appeals.

The PTI has declared its intra-party election to be illegitimate and filed a petition against the electoral authority’s refusal to provide a certificate. The party’s election emblem, the bat, was also invalidated by the ECP. In opposition to the ruling that had earlier halted the ECP order, the PTI had petitioned the PHC.

But after the election watchdog submitted a review appeal to the high court, the interim respite given to the PTI was withdrawn and the ECP’s previous ruling was reinstated.

The judges voiced their dissatisfaction at the beginning of the hearing on the absence of PTI counsels Barrister Gohar Khan and Barrister Zafar, who arrived late for the hearing because of fog.

Barrister Zafar further contended that the ECP lacks the power to investigate internal party appointments and cannot prohibit intraparty elections.

“The PHC has the authority to investigate political parties’ internal appointments,” he stated.

However, Justice Ijaz Anwar stated that even the high court lacks the jurisdiction to investigate political parties’ internal appointments.

Barrister Zafar continued, “ECP is not a court; it is a constitutional body.”

The Election Commission has been declared not to be a court of law in a number of rulings, Ali Zafar

He previously told the court that there had been no objections to the intra-party elections scheduled for December 2.

The attorney also said there are concerns about the people who coordinated the elections.

“The Election Commission is not able to declare elections held within a party invalid. They cannot accept electoral emblems, the PTI lawyer said, even in the event that the intra-party elections are not held.

According to Zafar, the electoral body is not allowed to meddle in internal party matters.

“Nowhere in the world does ECP have these powers. It just maintains records,” he contended.

Regarding intra-party elections, the attorney stated that the act was changed in 2023 and that party polls must be conducted every five years. There used to be no penalties for skipping intraparty elections. The only form of punishment is a fine; an election symbol is not taken away.

The attorney argued that the ECP’s authority is not stated anywhere in writing. “The certificate must be issued by the Election Commission within seven days.”

According to Barrister Zafar, the intra-party election is a civil dispute, and the ECP is not authorized to investigate it.

The attorney emphasized, “To date, the Election Commission has not investigated the intra-party elections of any other party.”

Inquiring into potential opposition candidates for the intra-party election chairperson, Justice Arshad questioned the PTI lawyer. The attorney gave a negative response.

After concluding his comments, he declared, “PTI is being openly discriminated against,” and the court postponed the case’s hearing for thirty minutes.