Daska NA by-poll: Illegalities by local admin will have to be proved: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) Thursday observed that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) did not mention in its judgment any design on the part of local administration by creating hindrances in the voting process during the by-polls in National Assembly constituency NA-75, Daska.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umer Ata Bandial, heard the petition of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) candidate Ali Asjad Malhi, challenging the ECP order of February 25, 2021, declaring the by-election at NA-75 Daska void and ordering re-polling in the whole constituency. Salman Akram Raja, counsel for the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) candidate Nausheen Iftikhar, while continuing his arguments through video link from Lahore Registry, submitted that the Election Commission found that there were some designs on the part of the local administration of creating hindrances during the Daska by-polls.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar, however, observed that the ECP did not mention any such thing in its judgment regarding hindrances, created by the local administration during the voting process.

“In which para the Election Commission had said this,” Justice Muneeb asked Salman Raja.

The counsel, however, submitted that level playing field was not ensured by the local administration during the election process.

“This is your inference,” Justice Muneeb told the counsel.

The PML counsel submitted that 2o presiding officers were not available for their comments to the ECP at the time of violence erupted, adding that there was no contact between the ECP and its staff.

Justice Muneeb, however, observed that material was not before the ECP as he knows.

“You must understand that it’s an appeal where mobile record and data could not be examined,” Justice Muneeb told the counsel. “Please don’t go into inadmissible material,” Justice Muneeb further asked the PML-N counsel. Justice Bandial reminded the counsel that he had earlier argued repeatedly that 20 presiding officers went missing along with the police escort.

“You should read out a para from Waheeda Shah’s case, and do you know what does gross illegalities mean,” Justice Bandial asked the PML-N counsel, adding that he should know as to how much important was the conduct of the Election Commission was, as envisaged under Article 218(3) of the Constitution for holding elections honestly, justly, fairly and guarding against the corrupt practice. “You have to show us that there was a great illegality on the part of the local administration during the voting process,” Justice Bandial told the PML-N counsel.

Salman Raja submitted that there was a perception that election was not held in transparent manner and the civil administration did not cooperate in Daska with the Election Commission and this non-cooperation benefited the opposite candidate.

“You should confine yourself to the stance earlier you have taken regarding missing of 20 presiding officers,” Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, another member of the bench, asked the counsel.

When Salman Raja cited judgments including Aftab Shaban Mirani etc., Justice Bandial interrupted him reminding him that his case related to 360 polling stations.

“You have to relate the facts and material provided by the ECP as a whole,” Justice Bandial told the counsel.

“We need to look as to how you justify holding of re-polling in the whole of constituency,” Justice Bandial further told the counsel, adding that the court was again at the end of the week.

The PML-N counsel submitted that chaos had erupted at around 40 or 76 polling stations, adding that the perception was that clashes were taking place in the entire constituency.

He contended that in rural areas of the constituency, the voter turnout was 52% while in the urban areas of NA-75, the turnout had been measured at 35% due to violence.

When the court asked as to how many presiding officers were under the control of the areas being managed by police officer Zulfiqar Ali Virk. The counsel replied that out of 20, eight presiding officers went missing, adding that the situation got worse in 109 polling stations due to which the Election Commission had to order re-polling in the entire constituency."

The counsel submitted that the ECP was a constitutional body that had conducted its own investigation. He contended that its decision would be a sort of deterrence for future.

The counsel cited various judgments and while citing one judgment, he contended that the Supreme Court had ordered re-polling in the entire constituency.

Concluding his arguments, he prayed the apex court to uphold the ECP decision of re-polling in entire constituency.

He prayed that if not on entire constituency, the court should hold elections on 109 polling stations of the constituency where the voting had been flawed.

Meanwhile, Mian Abdur Rauf, counsel for the ECP, submitted an investigation report, stating that the ECP staff including the presiding officers were directed to use the ECP vehicle for transportation of the election material.

He informed the court that it was the duty of the presiding officers to pack the election material and then hand it over to the respective returning officers (ROs).

However, the 20 presiding officers, instead of reaching their required point, went to another place,” the ECP counsel contended.

He submitted that as per information provided to the Election Commission, the polling staff went to Sialkot.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar, however, asked the ECP counsel that he came to know later on about Sialkot while according to initial information, the ECP was ignorant about the whereabouts of the staff.

The ECP counsel submitted that every presiding officer had three mobile numbers; however, all the phones of 20 presiding officers had been switched off.

The counsel also read out advisory instructions for the election process as well as for the contesting candidates before any election.

Meanwhile, Justice Bandial asked the ECP counsel to establish that there was an organised plan of rigging of the instant election. If not, he will have to tell the court about any violation of the law made during the voting process.

The court adjourned the hearing until today (Friday) wherein the counsel for the ECP will continue his arguments.