ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) Dec 22 judgment depriving the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) of its famous poll symbol — the ‘bat’ — in a late-night verdict following a long session on Saturday.
The judgment was made by the election watchdog minutes before the fifth delayed deadline for the submission of party tickets by intending candidates. After a several-hour wait, the three-member bench of Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and Justice Musarrat Hilali issued the decision at 11:15 p.m.“Democracy founded Pakistan, and a fundamental aspect of that is the ability to run for office and vote, both within a political party and in general elections.” Anything less would lead to authoritarianism, which could lead to dictatorship,” the CJP observed.The hearing began at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, a day on which the court has never convened to consider cases. The panel, which had taken up the ECP’s appeal against the Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) decision to restore the PTI’s election symbol, took several breaks during the hearing.
The ECP personnel’ jobs were also impacted by the lengthy hearing. They were not only present in the courtroom for the ruling, but they also had to extend their deadlines numerous times due to a delay in the court order. It was first extended from 4:00pm to 7:00pm, then 10:00pm, 11:00pm, and eventually 11:30pm.The judgment also stated that the ECP was a constitutional body whose obligations included those indicated in the Constitution, namely Article 219(e), which states that the ECP must also perform such activities as required by law, which would include those mentioned in the act.
According to the court, the ECP did not behave maliciously, nor was the PTI discriminated against in this matter.“It transpired that ECP had passed orders against 13 other registered political parties which were far more severe than the order passed against PTI; one such case, of All Pakistan Muslim League, came before this court on Jan 12, 2024, and the order of the ECP, delisting the said political party, was upheld,” the judge said. When such a statement was challenged, the court ruled that simply producing a certificate declaring that intra-party elections were held would not serve to demonstrate that the elections were held.
“In our opinion, the ECP should not be concerned with minor irregularities in the conduct of political party elections.” “However, in the instant case, not even prima facie evidence was produced to show that a semblance of elections were held,” the decision stated.
According to the decision, “14 PTI members with stated credentials complained to ECP that elections had not been held.” These concerns were dismissed in the writ case by simply claiming that they were not PTI members…but this bare rejection was insufficient… And, if any member of a political party is expelled, it must be done in accordance with Section 205 of the Act, but no proof was presented in this respect.”
“Section 208 of the Elections Act 2017 mandates that political parties hold intra-party elections on a regular basis…every member of a political party be provided with an equal opportunity…,” the ruling stated, regretting that the aforementioned members were not given nomination papers when they went to get them.
“Incidentally, the notice issued by the PTI secretariat stated that the elections were to be held in Peshawar but did not mention the venue and then the venue was shifted to Chamkani, which is a village adjacent to Peshawar,” the court said in a statement.
“Neither before the Lahore High Court nor before the Peshawar High Court was any provision of the [Elections] Act, including Section 215(5), challenged,” the judgement stated, adding that the judges’ observation that the provision of the law was “absurd” was uncalled for, especially since no provision thereof was declared unconstitutional.
“If it had been established that elections had been held then the ECP would have to justify if any legal benefit to such a political party was being withheld, but if intra-party polls were not held, the benefits accruing pursuant to the holding of elections could not be claimed,” the court concluded.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the argument that the ECP lacked “any jurisdiction to question or adjudicate” such elections. “If such an interpretation is accepted it would render all provisions in the Elections Act requiring the holding of intra-party elections illusory and of no consequence and be redundant.”
The verdict was criticized by Faisal Siddiqui, a senior counsel of the Supreme Court. “This decision in the ‘PTI bat symbol case’ will join the ranks of the notorious ‘Maulvi Tamizuddin case’ as a decision which, by hiding behind the smokescreen of legal technicalities, has fatally damaged democratic constitutionalism,” he said, comparing the court order to ‘political engineering’ in the 2018 elections.
