close
Sunday April 28, 2024

Imran moves SC against rejection of nomination papers

In his appeal under Article 185(3) of Constitution, Imran Khan named Election Tribunal for NA-189, Minawali-1

By Sohail Khan
February 01, 2024
This picture released on August 3, 2023, shows PTI Chairman Imran Khan while speaking in front of a camera. — Facebook/Imran Khan
This picture released on August 3, 2023, shows PTI Chairman Imran Khan while speaking in front of a camera. — Facebook/Imran Khan

ISLAMABAD: Former prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan moved the Supreme Court Wednesday against the Lahore High Court’s rejection of his nomination papers for NA-89 and NA-122.

In his appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, Imran Khan named the Election Tribunal for NA-189, Minawali-1, and the Returning Officer for NA-89, among others, as respondents. He urged the apex court to convert the petition into an appeal and set aside the Lahore High Court’s decision, the tribunal order dated January 10, 2024, and the returning officer’s order dated December 30, 2023.

Imran Khan requested the court accept his nomination papers for NA-89 (Mianwali-I). He further sought a declaration that he is entitled to be included in the list of validly nominated candidates for NA-89 (Mianwali-I) and to allocate his party’s symbol (or any other appropriate symbol as applicable).

He prayed for directions to the returning officer for NA-89 at the Election Commission of Pakistan to include his name in the list of validly nominated candidates and allocate his party’s symbol (or any other appropriate symbol as applicable).

Imran Khan questioned the rejection of his nomination papers under Article 63(1)(h) of the Constitution, arguing that the conviction was for an offence under Sections 167(a), 173(d), and 174 of the Elections Act, which does not involve moral turpitude. He raised questions about whether Article 63(1)(h) applies to a conviction for an offence of “making or publishing a false statement or declaration” under Sections 167(a) and 173(d) of the Elections Act, which is a strict liability offence without involving any element of dishonesty.

He concluded that the impugned orders were arbitrary and irrational decisions, lacking sustainability and called for the Supreme Court’s intervention.