Election transparency is rarely recognized in Pakistan: Chief Justice

Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Qazi Faizaisa says that we are aware of history, how political parties were influenced, what election symbol is is well known, we do not deny the importance of election symbol. The transparency of elections is rarely recognized in Pakistan.

According to the details, the hearing on the Election Commission’s appeal against the restoration of the election symbol of bat is going on. A 3-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice is conducting the hearing.

At the beginning of the hearing, Tehreek-e-Insaf lawyer Hamid Khan told the court that Barrister Ali Zafar was the counsel in the Peshawar High Court, Barrister Ali Zafar will give arguments, I have seen, the judgment is very well written.

Ali Zafar told the court that there is a shortage of time, so I will try to complete the arguments soon, today is the last day to submit the party ticket. The Chief Justice said that we also have less time because the order has to be written.

Chief Justice Qazi Faizaisa remarked that we only want to know general things, the transparency of elections is rarely recognized in Pakistan, we will not go into the small details of the elections.

The Chief Justice said that it was admitted that Akbar S. Babar is the founding member of the party, just because you don’t like anyone, the membership does not end. Did the members get a transparent opportunity to submit their nomination papers or not? Not having an answer to this basic question can lead to trouble. The question is whether there is democracy within the party or not.

During the hearing, Tehreek-e-Insaf lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar told the court that the election symbol is the party’s fundamental right. The Chief Justice said that we do not deny the importance of the election symbol.

Ali Zafar said that the symbol of sword was taken from PPP in the past, then PP became a parliamentarian, Chief Justice said that Muslim League also saw a similar time but it is also to be seen who was in the government at that time. Today the opponents of PTI are not in the government. The Chief Justice said that the example of People’s Party is the first, we understand the history of how political parties were affected.

Ali Zafar told the court that the Election Commission did not mention any irregularity in the decision, the order of the Election Commission admitted that intra-party elections were held, after receiving the answer, the Election Commission declared the election null and withdrew the election symbol. The PTI lawyer said that the Election Commission sent 32 questions to which they gave a written answer, our basic position was that the petitioners are not party members.

The PTI lawyer said that the Election Commission ordered to hold the elections in 20 days, it was feared that the PTI would not be excluded from the elections, so it was implemented.

He further said that the PTI election dispute could have gone in the civil court only, no member of PTI challenged the election, the Election Commission cannot give a fair trial, nor did the trial take place.

Barrister Ali Zafar said that neither the Constitution nor the Election Act 2017 authorizes the scrutiny of intra-party elections, the Constitution and the law do not allow any party to be deprived of its electoral symbol, my impeachment will be before the court.

Tehreek-e-Insaf’s lawyer said that my second point would be Article 17 of the Constitution, the Election Commission cannot withdraw the election symbol on the allegation of irregularities, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 17 of the Constitution in several decisions, every political party has the right to contest elections on a symbol. Depriving the political party of the electoral symbol is a denial of the fundamental right of the people.

Ali Zafar said that my fifth point is that the Election Commission is discriminating, if a wrong decision is given, it can be judicially reviewed. My next point is that the Election Commission is not a court of law.

PTI withdraws the charge of malice of facts on the Election Commission

The Chief Justice remarked that if you allege malice, tell me where the malice took place. You say that the Election Commission is under pressure from the establishment, so prove it, you must admit that I have to conduct party elections. PTI lawyer Ali Zafar withdrew the allegation of malice of facts on the Election Commission.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the main point is the authority of the Election Commission, if it is not done then the rest will end.

The Chief Justice inquired why PTI does not have confidence in its 8.5 lakh members. One of its founding members is saying that he was not allowed to contest the election, Akbar S. Babar did not have support, he lost the election, at that time the founder of PTI is in jail, in such a situation, the importance of the party election increases. I don’t know you.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar said that the Election Commission took things out of your party constitution and told you, the Election Commission did not say anything to you on its behalf. No rent. Any constitutional and legal reference will be taken.

Ali Zafar told the court that the Election Commission did not mention any irregularities in the decision, the Election Commission’s order admitted that intra-party elections were held.