Supreme Court issues detailed judgement on PTI intra-party elections, electoral symbol
Pakistan
Supreme Court issues detailed judgement on PTI intra-party elections, electoral symbol
ISLAMABAD (Dunya News) – The Supreme Court on Thursday issued the detailed written judgement regarding the intra-party elections of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and its electoral symbol ‘bat’.
The 38-page judgement, authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, read: “The petition of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is converted into an appeal and allowed by setting aside the impugned order and judgement of the PHC (Peshawar High Court), resultantly, the order of the ECP dated 22 December 2023 is upheld.”
“The ECP had issued a notice on 24 May 2021 to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to hold intra party elections, which was followed by a show cause notice stating that section 208 of Elections Act, 2017 (‘the Act’) mandates that intra party elections in PTI must be held and it had been five years since the last one was held, and ECP stipulated the consequences, mentioned in the Act, which would follow if elections were not held. PTI did not dispute that elections had not been held but submitted that because of Covid-19 the time for holding its intra-party elections may be extended by one year. Time was granted and PTI was directed to hold intra party elections no later than 13 June 2022 and told that ‘no further extension will be granted.”
“The ECP vide its order dated 13 September 2023 held that ‘a lenient view has been taken with direction to the PTI to hold its intra-party elections strictly in accordance with the prevailing party constitution, within twenty days positively’ failing which it ‘would be ineligible to obtain an election symbol for elections,” the order detailed.
“ECP has been calling upon PTI to hold its intra-party elections since 24 May 2021; at that time the PTI was in the Federal Government and in some provinces. Therefore, it cannot be stated that ECP was victimizing PTI. Nonetheless, we wanted to satisfy ourselves that the ECP had not acted mala fide or for ulterior reasons or that PTI was discriminated against.”
“It transpired that ECP had passed orders against thirteen other registered political parties which were far more severe than the order passed against PTI.”
The order read, “ECP wanted to ensure that PTI holds intra party elections. The mere production of a certificate stating that such elections were held would not suffice to establish that intra party elections had been held when a challenge was thrown to such an assertion. Nor, in our opinion, should ECP concern itself with minor irregularities in the holding of a political party’s elections. However, in the instant case not even prima facie evidence was produced to show that a semblance of elections had been held.”
“Fourteen PTI members, with stated credentials, had complained to ECP that elections had not been held. These complaints were brushed aside in the writ petition by simply asserting that they were not members of PTI and thus not entitled to contest elections, but this bare denial was insufficient, particularly when they had credibly established their long association with PTI.”
“And, if any member of a political party is expelled it must be done in accordance with section 205 of the Act, but no evidence in this regard was forthcoming.
“Democracy founded Pakistan, a fundamental aspect of which is the ability to put oneself forward as a candidate and to be able to vote, both within a political party and in general elections. Anything less would give rise to authoritarianism which may lead to dictatorship,” it added.
“The ECP is a constitutional body and amongst its duties are those mentioned in the Constitution, Article 219(e) of which stipulates that ECP must also undertake such functions as prescribed by law, which would include those mentioned in the Act. Section 208 of the Act mandates that political parties must hold intra party elections periodically, and that a period not exceeding five years elapse within two elections. It further stipulates that every member of a political party ‘be provided with an equal opportunity of contesting election for any political party office.”
“Members of PTI were not provided nomination papers when they went to get them nor were any intra party elections held. 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.”
“Neither before the LHC nor before the PHC, any provision of the Act, including section 215(5), was challenged.”
“We also do not agree with the learned Judges that the ECP did not have ‘any jurisdiction to question or adjudicate the Intra Party Elections of a political party,” concluded the judgement.
