ISLAMABAD: Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned how Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf got the election symbol in 2018 despite not conducting internal party polls at that time.
The question was raised on Monday during the Supreme Court (SC) hearing on the Sunni Ittehad Council’s (SIC) appeal against the ECP’s decision not to allocate reserved seats to it in the national and provincial legislatures.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, who heads the 13-member full bench, responded to Justice Mandokhail by saying that reveling in a past matter would also cast doubt on the Senate president’s choice.
Earlier during the hearing, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) lawyer presented four legal arguments stating that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) did not hold intra-party elections as per the law.
He argued that Barrister Gohar’s signature as Chairman on PTI tickets was invalid as there was no legal organization of PTI at that time.
The party ticket bears the signature of Barrister Gohar as Chairman.
Tehreek-e-Insaf did not have a legal organizational structure at the time the ticket was issued.
The organization of the party did not exist due to the failure to conduct proper internal party elections.
Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the party tickets were issued on December 22, while the decision on internal party elections came on January 13, during which Barrister Gohar was the chairman.
ECP advisor Sikander Bashir Mohmand mentioned that the ECP had annulled the internal party elections on 23 December.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah noted that the ECP’s decision was stayed on December 26, while Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked for an explanation as to where and who went wrong.
Advocate Sikandar Mehmood explained that many candidates did not mention their party affiliation and were therefore considered independent.
Judge Jamal Mandokhail emphasized that the decisive element is the ticket to the party; without it, the candidate will be considered independent.
The Electoral Commission’s lawyer agreed that he and the judiciary were on the same page.
Judge Mandokhail replied, “Tear the page, I don’t want to be on the same page.”
The lawyer argued that the party tickets issued by Barrister Gohar had no legal standing.
Sahebzada Hamid Raza, chairman of the Sunni Ittehad Council, could have issued tickets for the party but did not.
Raza submitted a PTI ticket along with his nomination papers, though he mentioned his affiliation with the PTI-affiliated SIC.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi pointed out that the returning officer had accepted Raza’s papers. The ECP lawyer clarified that Raza submitted a statement for PTI Ideological.
Justice Shahid Waheed asked if Raza was asked to explain before he was declared independent.
The lawyer replied that Raza had demanded the ball symbol and presented PTI’s party ticket.
Justice Munib Akhtar questioned the relevance of intra-party elections, while Justice Ayesha Malik observed that the situation would disrupt the election schedule.
The court was investigating under which law PTI deserves special treatment.
CJP Isa noted that the PTI election issue has been discussed with the Election Commission for years.
Justice Akhtar observed that the issue was the legality of the election, not its conduct.
The lawyer mentioned that under Article 218(3) PTI can be granted leniency but Kanwal Shauzab’s petition was inadmissible as she was not an affected party.
Lawyer Mohmand added that PTI members are not part of SIC.
Justice Yahya Afridi said six candidates were declared independent ECP.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked if PTI candidates could be given three days to join the party, which the lawyer said was impossible.
Justice Athar Minallah pointed out that no party registration was canceled by the Supreme Court decision.
Lawyer Kamran Murtaza supported the ECP, noting a “printing error” that confused minority representation.
The ECP’s arguments were countered by PTI chairman Barrister Gohar, who said he had submitted both party and independent nomination papers and accused the ECP of hiding the papers from the court.
Assistant lawyer Kamran Murtaza said the JUI-F agrees with the ECP’s arguments.
PPP lawyer Shehzad Shaukat took up Makhdoom Ali Khan’s arguments. Kamran Murtaza clarified that there was a misunderstanding regarding the representation of minorities in the party.
Justice Mandokhail questioned the correctness of the Election Commission and Murtaza affirmed their support for the constitutional institution.
PML-N’s lawyer Haris Azmat submitted written arguments to the court.
The case of reserved seats
On 22 December 2023, the ECP stripped PTI of its election symbol in view of irregularities in its intra-party polls.
On January 13, the Supreme Court upheld the ECP’s order, forcing PTI candidates to contest the February 8 general elections as independents.
These independent returned candidates joined the SIC after the official election results were declared. The SIC later sought reserved seats in Parliament and provincial assemblies in proportion to their general seats.
However, the ECP refused to allot these reserved seats to SIC on March 1 and allotted other reserved seats to other political parties. The Peshawar High Court (PHC) also upheld the ECP’s order on March 25, prompting the SIC to approach the apex court.
At the last hearing of the case, the ECP counsel submitted a summary of the nomination papers submitted by PTI-backed independent candidates ahead of the elections.
Commenting on the summary, one of the bench members Naeem Akhtar Afghan-said that 35 of the 81 returned PTI-backed candidates did not indicate their PTI affiliation in the nomination papers.
