ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Saturday nullified the decision of the Peshawar High Court that permitted the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to retain its electoral symbol, the ‘bat’, just weeks before the upcoming general elections in the country.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa announced the verdict in the late hours of the evening, shortly after the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and PTI lawyers concluded their arguments.
A three-member Supreme Court bench, led by CJP Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, unanimously reached this decision in response to an appeal filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) contesting a Peshawar High Court (PHC) ruling of Jan 10, 2024, concerning PTI’s intra-party polls and election symbol.
In the order, the court stated that the judges “do not agree with the learned judges [of the PHC] that the ECP did not have ‘any jurisdiction to question or adjudicate the intra-party elections of a political party’.”
It stated that accepting any such interpretation would render all provisions in the Election Act, 2017, that require the holding of intra party elections “illusory and of no consequence and be redundant”.
As the Supreme Court resumed the hearing of PTI symbol case on Saturday, Barrister Ali Zafar – the party’s lead counsel – argued that the neither the Constitution nor the Election Act allowed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to evaluate the intra-party polls.
The arguments came as Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that there are two points in question: firstly, whether the court [Peshawar High Court] has the jurisdiction to intervene and overturn the ECP decision, and, secondly, whether the ECP enjoyed the authority to examine the intraparty elections.
Earlier on Friday, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa asserted that the PTI would face repercussions if discrepancies were found in its intraparty polls. He emphasised that the ECP was a constitutional institution and the court should not intervene in its matters.
And on Saturday, the chief remarked that the basic question was of democracy, not the implementation on party constitution. Democracy should be in political parties too, not just in the country, he added.
The Supreme Court is session to hear the matter after the ECP challenged the Peshawar High Court (PHC) verdict which reversed the country’s top electoral body’s decision of withdrawing “bat” – the PTI party symbol – earlier this week.
U-TURN ON BIAS ALLEGATIONS
You would have to prove ill intentions on the part of ECP, the chief justice observed, forcing Barrister Ali Zafar to withdraw the allegation of bias.
The PTI counsel backtracked as the chief justice pressed him to show evidence to substantiate the accusations ill-intentions and the ECP facing pressure from establishment.
He passed these remarks as Barrister Ali Zafar said that the intraparty elections were held according to the party constitution and described depriving the PTI of party symbol as a violation of Article 17.
The chief justice also reminded the PTI counsel that the ECP had issued notice to his client when they were in power. The court would not discuss the constitutional status of Election Act because no one had challenged the legislation, he observed.
Stressing the need to strengthen the institutions, the chief justice also made it clear that the court could not control the constitutional bodies.
WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY?
About the assertion that the ECP has no powers to regulate the intraparty polls, the chief justice told the lawyer that the Constitution also didn’t mention that the country’s top electoral body would issue symbols to political parties.
As the counsel repeated the stance that the ECP doesn’t have the authority to review the intraparty polls, the chief justice remarked that he would have to show who enjoys the powers and whether no one has any.
“On one hand, you are not accepting the ECP authority and, on the other, mentioning that it can only impose fine?” he pointed out a contradiction in response to the PTI counsel’s argument about the maximum penalty in the case of intraparty elections.
Barrister Ali Zafar also argued the Election Act made it mandatory for the ECP to issue a certificate within seven days of the intraparty polls. However, Justice Musarrat Hilali – a member of the three-member bench – observed that issuance of the document had been conditioned to holding elections as per the party constitution.
COMPLAINTS, LEVEL-PLAYING FIELD, NO DOCUMENTS
At one point, Justice Mazhar reminded Barrister Ali Zafar that the ECP had acted only after complaints were filed and the action wasn’t prompted by suo motto powers.
“You ask for a level playing field, you must also give one to your members,” Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked and asked whether the party’s polls were transparent and whether it was clear who could or could not contest the election.
As the PTI counsel repeatedly failed to provide any proof to substantiate his arguments, Justice Hilali was forced to comment that he didn’t have any document whenever asked.
PANEL PUZZLE
The issue was candidates also discussed during the hearing as the judges questioned the wisdom of fielding candidates through a panel, meaning that no person can contest polls for PTI offices in individual capacity.
In his remarks, the chief justice remarked whether it was not against democratic principles as every individual should be allowed to announce his candidature. “Why an individual cannot contest polls for [party] chairman.”
Barrister Ali Zafar replied that it should have been the case, but the PTI constitution envisaged a panel.
