Petition on holding polls in 90 days: PTI moves SC against Registrar’s objections

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Saturday challenged the objections of the Supreme Court Registrar on its petition for declaring the Council of Common Interests (CCI) decision of August 5 about census as illegal and void ab initio.

PTI Secretary General Umar Ayub filed an appeal in the apex court under Order V Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 against the September 14 order of the SC Registrar returning the petition for not being maintainable.

The PTI secretary general had filed a petition in the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution praying for declaring as illegal and void ab initio the decision of purported Council of Common Interests (CCI) dated August 5, 2023 in which the forum approved the new census.

He had prayed the apex court for issuing direction to hold the general election in 90 days. However, the Supreme Court Registrar’s office had returned the petition with objections.

In his appeal, the PTI contended that the Registrar, in the impugned order, has overstepped his mandate and has adjudicated on a preliminary matter of maintainability that is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the apex court to determine.

He further contended the Registrar has ignored the contents of his petition because the two grounds of the petition explicitly outline the question of public importance that is central to the petition. He submitted that the petition involves matter of public importance as it seeks to uphold the fundamental rights of outlined in Chapter 1 of Part 11 as enshrined under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

“The constitutional requirement to hold elections within 90 days as specified in Article 224(2), is a crucial and obligatory aspect of the Constitution, directly impacting the fundamental rights of citizens,” Omar Ayub contended.

He further submitted that the respondents are depriving the petitioner as well all citizens of Pakistan of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution to contest and participate in elections.

“Unless the dates of the elections are announced, the exercise of this right will be frustrated,” the petitioner submitted, adding that although the Registrar undertook the Supreme Court’s adjudicatory role, he failed to address the plethora of Supreme Court judgments such as Muhammad Nawaz Sharif versus Federation of Pakistan PLD 1993 sc 473, in regard to fundamental rights of holding elections as enshrined under Article 17 of the Constitution.

He further submitted that the Registrar has inadequately addressed the evidence on the record that shows that notice of the petition has been provided to the respondents, therefore, the impugned decision is liable to be set aside. The PTI leader prayed that the impugned order of the Registrar returning the petition as being not entertain-able may kindly be set aside and the petition may graciously be ordered to be entertained, admitted and fixed before a bench of the apex court for its hearing and decision in accordance with law. It is pertinent to mention here that the Registrar office of the apex court had returned the petition by raising objections that the petitioners have not pointed out as to what questions of public importance in the case are involved with reference to enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution, so as to directly invoke jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.