PHC two-member bench comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Syed Arshad Ali started hearing into case on Tuesday       Supporters of former prime minister Imran Khan hold a giant cricket bat with the colors and initials of the party in Multan on July 20, 2018.— AFP

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday adjourned the hearing into a petition filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s decision of declaring its intra-party election invalid and stripping the party of the electoral symbol “bat” till today (Wednesday).

When the PHC two-member bench comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Syed Arshad Ali started hearing into the case on Tuesday, PTI lawyer Qazi Anwar told the court that Barrister Gohar Ali and Barrister Ali Zafar might be late for the court hearing because of the foggy weather. Justice Ijaz Anwar addressed Qazi Anwar and asked why not the hearing should be adjourned if his party was not interested in the case.

The bench asked the ECP counsel Sikandar Bashir Mohmand if it was necessary to issue notices to the other party (complainant) or not. He replied that listening to them (respondents) was a constitutional requirement. Qazi Anwar told the court that the PTI had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the January 3 decision of the PHC and the Apex Court was to hear the case today (Wednesday). Justice Ijaz Anwar said the appeal would have no status if they decided the case today.

Justice Syed Arshad Ali asked if anybody from the complainant was present in the court. Two complainants came forward instantly.

Barrister Ali Zafar, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Sikandar Hayat Shah, Ali Zaman, Shah Faisal Uthmankhel and Nouman Kakakhel appeared from the PTI. Qazi Ihsanullah Qureshi and Naveed Akhtar represented the complainants.

Barrister Ali Zafar and Barrister Gohar Ali told the court that the ECP had overstepped its mandate on December 22, last year by invalidating the PTI intra-party election and depriving the party of its bat electoral symbol. He said the ECP was not a trial court and that some SC verdicts were on record in this matter. The ECP has no right to invalidate the intra-party election of any political party, he submitted.

The counsels submitted to the court that the PTI intra-party elections were held in Peshawar on December 2, 2023 and that the ECP had validated the elections. They said later, an objection was raised that when the CEC was being appointed, Omar Ayub Khan was not the secretary general of the party and he was, therefore, not authorized to do so and as per the election laws, he should have obtained the approval from the federal council of the party. Barrister Gohar argued that the intra-party elections were held in a transparent manner and these would be considered legal even if there was a one panel of contestants.

He said elections were held as per Section 209 of the Election Act 2017, the party certificate was submitted to the ECP which, he lamented, was not posted at the website. Instead, the ECP issued a notice all of a sudden saying that the intra-party elections were not arranged as per the law.

Barrister Ali Zafar and Barrister Gohar Ali told the court initially the intra-party elections were declared invalid and later the bat electoral symbol was snatched from them as well, which was not the right step.

They contended that the PTI was the biggest political party of the country. It will not be able to contest the general elections and its candidate will have to join the electoral race as independents, therefore, the ECP decision should be set aside. The counsels said that no political party could be deprived of an electoral symbol and a few verdicts of the SC were on record in this record.

They said only a member of the party could raise any objection to the intra-party elections but in the instant case an outsider was the complainant and the ECP overstepped its mandate by taking a decision.

The counsels said the ECP could not act as an election tribunal as this duty was performed by the judges of the courts. They said the ECP had tried to keep the PTI out of the general elections.

The PTI counsels opposed the issuance of any notice by the court to the complainants as the ECP had taken the decision on its own, not on any application filed against the intra-party elections. They said nowhere in the world an election commission was authorized to declare invalid the intra-party election or take back the electoral symbol from a party.

Justice Syed Arshad Ali asked the PTI lawyers why they were insisting on getting the bat symbol. They replied that the party had contested elections in the past with this symbol and people were attached to the symbol.

Barrister Gohar told the court the PTI candidates had filed nomination papers but the ECP had stopped the scrutiny of the papers filed against the reserved seats. He said the PTI had to issue the party tickets to all the candidates, and hence the court should decide the case at the earliest.

ECP lawyer Sikandar Bashir Mohmand submitted to the court the SC directives were clear, adding the ECP could exercise constitutional powers along with administrative ones. He said the ECP had been made a party to the case, it was not their intention.

He said had the decision been meant for delisting the PTI, it would have been done long ago, adding even in case of delisting, the party could appeal the decision in the SC. He said the PHC could not hear this writ petition.

The ECP lawyer explained that intra-party elections and election symbol cases of 19 political parties were being heard, insisting that PTI had not been singled out. He said the ECP did not want any delay in the general elections and that was the direction of the SC as well.

Naming the objections to the PTI writ petitions, he said this case was pending with the SC and that the LHC in a recent verdict had said that the PTI had not challenged the vires of the Section 215 of the Election Act. He said the PTI was asked to hold the intra-party elections from time to time but it did not. Two petitions of the same nature could not be filed in the same court and the SC verdict was there. He said the LHC dismissed the writ citing the grounds that the PHC and SC were hearing the case. He said the SC had taken notice of the issue.

The lawyer said the petitioners had no case to plead as ECP had all the powers and saying that it was only a record keeping body was not correct.

He said ECP could issue directives to any political party and hence had the powers to declare any intra-party elections illegal.

The court directed the counsel for complaints to argue the case on Wednesday at 9am so that it may be decided earlier.