PESHAWAR (Web Desk) – After days of deliberations, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Saturday finally challenged the verdict passed by a single member Peshawar High Court (PHC) bench, which allowed the PTI to contest the February 8 general elections on “bat” – the party symbol.
The ECP for this purpose has filed a review petition so that the PHC verdict of suspending its orders about declaring the PTI intraparty elections illegal and removing the party from the list of sanctioned political parties, which meant that it could no longer contest the polls with the symbol.
Read more: Balance being tilted towards blue-eyed: Shehbaz
In its December 26 ruling, the single-member bench had accepted a plea filed by the PTI and restored the party symbol till a final decision, as, according to the court, a two-member bench would hear the matter after winter vacations.
According to the ECP petition, a division bench should hear the matter immediately for being a matter of public interest, noting that disputing any phase of the electoral exercise meant that the whole process had been challenged.
The petition mentions that that the ECP is responsible for conducting elections honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law by making necessary arrangements ahead of the polls.
Read more: Don't run PTI 'election campaign', says Javed Latif
"This court [...] observed that election is a process which starts with the issuance of the election programme and consists of the various links and stages in that behalf as, filing of nomination papers, their scrutiny, the hearing of objections and the holding of actual polls. If any of these links is challenged it really (is) tantamount to challenging the said process of election," it said.
"This case implies that where a violation of the standards mentioned in Article 218(3) has not as yet taken place, the Election Commission is legally empowered under Article 218(3) to exercise its powers pre-emptively in order to avoid a violation of these standards," said the petition.
Moreover, the plea said that the petitioners had sought "interim relief" for the suspension of ECP's order and, therefore, the court could not grant final relief as an interim relief, which meant that the single-bench judgment was against the law as well as against a Supreme Court verdict issued in 1997.