ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf’s petition seeking to revisit its Jan 13 ruling in favour of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) that deprived the party of the election symbol of cricket bat.
Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, a three-judge bench also comprising Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali dismissed the review petition on the grounds that no illegality or material error in the judgement was pointed out by the petitioner.
Senior counsel Hamid Khan earlier pleaded before the court that he did not want to argue before a bench, headed by a person who allegedly “harbours bias against PTI”.
In a separate application, the PTI had asked the apex court to constitute a bench, comprising not less than five and preferably at least eight judges, under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 to hear the matter.
No illegality raised in plea, Justice Hilali says; counsel alleges judges harbour ‘bias’ against PTI
Opportunities lost
Referring to the filing of the review petition by the PTI, Justice Hilali pointed out a gap of about 25 days between the Jan 13 judgement and the review petition moved by the party, a time during which the party could have held the intra-party elections as well. She wondered if PTI’s real intention was to “use the judgement to gain public sympathy”.
The judge also noted that Imran Khan, who was then PTI chairman and prime minister, did not hold intra-party elections even when the ECP issued notice to him nor after he lost vote of confidence in parliament.
Justice Mazhar questioned why the PTI did not challenge Section 215(5) of the Elections Act, 2017, which suggests consequences for not holding the intra-party elections including denial of election symbol to a party.
The judge remarked whether the party counsel wanted the court to read down Section 215(5) of the act.
He also reminded the counsel that the PTI’s constitution had a very comprehensive and transparent procedure of how to conduct intra-party elections, but the party violated it.
Irony
“Irony is that the law regarding denial of the party symbol for not holding intra-party elections was made by the PTI,” the chief justice said, wondering why the party was “averse to holding intra-party elections”.
He also pointed out that as many as 90 people were elected unopposed without even furnishing Rs50,000 election fees during whatever elections the party had held.
“So what,” the counsel intervened, adding that Section 215(5) was questioned during the first round of litigation.
Back it up [with legal arguments and evidence] instead of saying in a layman’s term, the CJP observed, reminding the petitioner could not argue everything under the sun.
26th Amendment
Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, who also had advanced arguments on behalf of the PTI in the election symbol case, objected to the formation of the bench.
He said that under the 26th Constitutional Amendment passed by parliament on Oct 21, he would not like to argue before the existing bench and sought formation of a constitutional bench. The CJP, however, said he had not seen any amendment till then.
Justice Mazhar reminded the counsel that he was arguing the review petition, which did not come under the purview of a constitutional bench. The bench, however, provided an opportunity to all lawyers present in the court to argue on the review petition and when nobody turned up, the court dismissed the petition.
While pointing towards Hamid Khan, the CJP regretted that one should not do politics that encroached upon the domain of the judiciary. Many senior lawyers left politics outside when they entered courtroom, he observed. However, the counsel asked the judge to write in the order whatever he intended.
Published in Dawn, October 22nd, 2024
