Polls under supervision of judiciary: PHC reserves verdict on PTI petition’s maintainability

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Monday reserved its judgement on the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) seeking the holding of the next general election under the supervision of the judiciary.

PHC Chief Justice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad heard the petition. Muazzam Butt Advocate appeared for the petitioner. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Advocate General Aamir Javed and Additional Advocate General Danial Khan Chamkani represented the provincial government.

Additional Attorney General Sanaullah and Mohsin Kamran Siddiqu appeared on behalf of the federal government and the Election Commission of Pakistan .

During the hearing, Justice Shakeel Ahmad asked whether the high court could hear the case after the verdict of the Supreme Court about the holding of the general election slated for February 8 next year. The justice said that if the high court could hear the case under what law it could do so. He said that the Supreme Court had clarified many points in its December 15 judgement. Chief Justice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan said that the high court could not overlook the decision of the Supreme Court.

Muazzam Butt told the court that the Supreme Court had suspended the order of the Lahore High Court. He said the appointment of the district returning officers was challenged because the recent arrest orders under the 3 MPO had been issued by the DROs acting as deputy commissioners. Muazzam Butt told the court that the appointment of the district returning officers and returning officers was based on mala fide intention, adding the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) did not want to delay the holding of the general election.

He said the chief election commissioner was silent over the treatment being meted out to the PTI workers. He pointed out that the training of the district returning officers and returning officers should have been conducted two months ago. At this, the chief justice said that the court could not meddle in the affairs of the election commission. The counsel for the election commission told the court that the election watchdog had ended the politically-motivated appointments, adding that all the affairs were being monitored. He told the court that the district returning officers would perform duty as officials of the election commission and not as officials of the district administration. The counsel said that the election watchdog should be informed if there was any complaint against the DROs.