SC to hear Imran, Marwat’s pleas for inquiry commission on rigging

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday admitted for hearing the petitions of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) seeking formation of an inquiry commission for probing the alleged rigging in general elections held on Feb 8, 2024.

A five-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the petitions filed by PTI founding Chairman and former prime minister Imran Khan as well as PTI leader Sher Afzal Marwat against rigging in 2024 general elections.

On March 20, 2024, PTI founding Chairman Imran Khan had filed a petition in the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution through his counsel Hamid Khan, requesting the court to constitute a judicial commission to probe the process of general elections, which allegedly rendered winners into losers and losers into winners.

Imran Khan filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution through Secretary General Omar Ayub Khan.

He had prayed to the apex court that a judicial commission, consisting of serving Supreme Court judges holding no bias towards anyone, be formed to inquire, audit and examine the manner and process of general elections of Feb 8, 2024 and the developments that took place thereafter of compiling false and fraudulent results rendering winners into losers and losers into winners.

The PTI founding chairman had prayed that all the consequential acts of forming governments at the federal and Punjab levels be immediately suspended till the result of the probe by the judicial commission appointed in this behalf are made public.

Similarly, PTI leader Sher Afzal Marwat who was elected MNA from National Assembly constituency NA-41 on February 23, 2024 had also filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution against alleged rigging in the February 8 general elections.

Filed through his counsel Riaz Hanif Rahi, Sher Afzal had prayed to the apex court the process of forming governments be held in abeyance till the final decision of his petition.

The Registrar office, however, had raised objections to the petitions. On Friday, the court asked Hamid Khan, counsel for PTI founding Chairman Imran Khan that the Registrar’s office had raised objections to the petition.

Hamid Khan, counsel for Imran Khan who appeared before the court through video link, Lahore Registry however, told the court that the main objection of the Registrar office was that the court cannot constitute the inquiry commission for probing the alleged rigging in 2024 elections.

The learned counsel recalled to the court that earlier, in 2012, the Supreme Court had constituted an inquiry commission in Memogate scandal case while, during the year 2016, the court had also nominated an inquiry commission headed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa for probing the Quetta bomb blast case.

The court, however, observed that after the enactment of legislation made in 2017, it is the prerogative of the government either to constitute a commission or not.

Hamid Khan however, argued that in 2012 the Supreme Court recommended formation of an inquiry commission in Memogate case by holding that whenever, there is an issue of national importance and security, such a commission can be constituted.

Hamid Khan pealed the court to remove the objections, raised by the Registrar Office on their petition and should be heard on merit.

Similarly, Riaz Hanif Rahi, counsel for Sher Afzal Marwat, told the court that an appeal against objection was filed which has been returned by the Registrar Office with the observation that the case is now fixed before the court which is no more a chamber matter now.

He contended that as the case is filed for judicial determination and cannot be dealt with on administrative side therefore, it be numbered and his petition be fixed and heard on merit.

Later, the court admitted for hearing both the petitions after removing the objections raised by the Registrar Office on the petitions and directed its office to allot the numbers for both the petitions and be fixed for hearing.

The court then, adjourned the matter for date-in-office (Indefinite period).