The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has put off the hearing of the case regarding the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) intra-party polls and its electoral symbol till tomorrow, 24NewsHD TV channel reported on Tuesday.
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has put off the hearing of the case regarding the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf intraparty polls and electoral symbol, 24NewsHD TV channel reported on Tuesday.
The two-judge bench, consisting of Justice Ejaz Anwar and Justice Syed Arshad Ali conducted the hearing. The delay of PTI lawyers in the appearance drew the court's ire.
The PHC put off the adjourned till 9 am tomorrow (Wednesday) after Barrister Ali Zafar and the ECP counsel wrapped up their arguments.
At the onset of the hearing, Advocate Qazi Anwar informed the PHC that Gohar and Zafar would reach the court in “five to ten minutes”.
Justice Anwar directed that the lawyers objecting to the PTI’s intra-party polls and electoral symbol should also be summoned. Noting that the objectors included Akbar S Babar, the judge asked about his absence.
The ECP informed the court that it would the electoral symbols would be allotted to the candidates on January 13 (Saturday).
“If there is no symbol allotted to the PTI, their candidates would be considered independent,” ECP counsel said. He added that the interim relief of a stay order on the electoral watchdog’s December 22 ruling had ended today.
Justice Ali asked, “Can this matter be solved if we decide today? A case in the Supreme Court would not be needed?” The ECP lawyer replied that the matter would not reach the apex court then.
In his arguments, Barrister Zafar recalled that those objecting to the PTI’s intra-party polls held in June 2022 had demanded that the party hold the elections again.
He argued that the PTI submitted a record of its intra-party polls to the ECP, adding, “The election commission began raising questions on it later on.”
The PTI lawyer contended that none of those who had challenged the party polls were PTI members.
the ECP counsel said the petitioners argued that the PTI’s intra-party polls had not been held according to the party’s constitution.
“The PTI will be deprived of its share from 227 seats,” Barrister Zafar said, adding that if the ‘bat’ symbol was taken away from the party, it would be rendered dormant.
Justice Ali asked the PTI counsel if his objection was on the matter of intra-party polls not falling within the ECP’s jurisdiction. “If a decision is not made today, hundreds of thousands of people will be deprived of the due rights,” he added.
The ECP lawyer then claimed that “no one was allowed to take part” in the party elections and that “everything was decided from before”.
“Can intra-party polls be held if electoral symbols still have to be allotted on January 13?” Justice Ali asked Mohmand, to which he replied that the PTI had not sought nomination papers from any candidate.
The court asked the parties if the hearing should be adjourned till Thursday, at which Zafar requested the court to restore the interim relief given earlier.
However, Justice Anwar refused to grant the same, stating that the “interim relief was the final request”. Zafar then said the party would not be able to provide the ECP with the list of its candidates as the symbols have to be allotted on January 13. The court then directed him to continue his arguments.
Subsequently, the PTI counsel read out loud the ECP’s order on PTI’s intra-party polls, highlighting that the party had held its internal elections on the electoral watchdog’s orders which resulted in Barrister Gohar being elected as the chairman.
“Barrister Gohar signed on record and submitted it to the ECP,” Zafar said, adding that the commission did not have the power to declare the intra-party polls null and void.
“Even if intra-party elections are not held, the ECP cannot snatch a party’s electoral symbol,” he argued. “The ECP is only a record keeper.”
He further pointed out that the only objection raised by the commission to the party’s intra-party polls was that the appointment of the chairman was not done properly. “The ECP’s verdict is based on malafide and should be nullified,” Zafar pleaded.
After the PTI counsel wrapped up his arguments, the court adjourned the hearing for 15 minutes.
When the proceedings resumed, ECP counsel Mohmand started presenting his arguments. He said the Lahore High Court had dismissed the case as it was already fixed before the Supreme Court. “Two courts cannot be approached for relief at the same time,” he contended.
On allegations that the ECP verdict was issued in haste, the lawyer highlighted that the PTI was given several chances to implement the commission’s orders. The ECP had categorically said that the PTI would be stripped of its electoral symbols if intra-party polls were not held, he said.
He claimed that the PTI took several “u-turns” in its documents as well, stressing that the party made amendments to its constitution but withdrew them when the election commission summoned it. “If the intra-party polls were held on the amendments withdrawn, then these polls would be nullified,” the lawyer added.
The ECP, he continued, was of the view that the PTI did not transparently hold its internal elections. Mohmand added that the party’s claim that the election commission was not empowered to revoke the electoral symbol was false and the ECP had the constitutional power to do the same.
“The commission is responsible for conducting free and fair elections,” he said. The ECP counsel clarified that the commission had only revoked the PTI’s ‘bat’ symbol. On the intra-party polls, he said that they should not just be following the party’s constitution but also the Elections Act. A party is bound to satisfy the ECP on its internal elections, he added.
Justice Ali asked if the election commission could take action on the issue of intra-party elections. “Yes, absolutely,” the ECP counsel replied.
Justice Anwar inquired if the electoral body had issued notices to the PTI, to which Mohamand said three show-cause notices had been served to the party. But the judge interjected that these notices were issued before the intra-party polls.
“Should a notice not have been issued after the internal elections?” Justice Anwar asked. The ECP counsel replied in the negative, saying that the case was already being heard and there was no need for a new show-cause notice. “The ECP is not a court,” he contended. “The election commission is an independent regulatory body and has constitutional authority.”