ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman and former prime minister Imran Khan approached the Supreme Court against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)’s judgment to turn down the PTI head’s declaration to disqualify MNA Raja Riaz for defecting from the party in the no-confidence vote.
Imran Khan on Monday filed an appeal under Article 63A of the Constitution challenging the ECP’s verdict dated May 11, 2022, and made the ECP and Raja Riaz as respondents.
Khan prayed before the apex court to declare the ECP’s judgment as illegal and unconstitutional and uphold the declaration issued by him under Article 63A on 8th April 2022 against Raja Riaz (respondent no 2).
The former premier submitted that Raja Riaz had contested the general election 2018 on the PTI’s ticket and won the MNA seat. He stated that when the opposition parties moved a resolution of no-confidence against him, the respondent no. 2 acted in the most treacherous and unfaithful manner and changed his loyalties to the PDM, adding due to his anti-PTI activities he issued him a show-cause notice on 19-03-2022.
Imran Khan alleged that in the no-confidence vote Raja Riaz cast vote against him; therefore, he issued a declaration under Article 63A(1)(a) against him to the speaker National Assembly, who forwarded it to the ECP. The Commission on 11-05-2022 after hearing the arguments of both the parties dismissed the PTI applications.
The PTI chairman contended that the impugned judgment has been rendered without applying the fair and impartial judicial mind thus, failed to determine the controversy comprehensively in accordance with the applicable law and propriety. The appellant (Imran Khan) has been treated in the most unfair, unjust and ordinary manner by the ECP.
The impugned order fails to address the controversy brought before the ECP in a meaningful manner and also failed to meet the spirit of mandatory constitutional provisions, i.e., Article 63A of the Constitution in a just, proper, legal and judicious manner. It lacks logic and it has been rendered against the principles of propriety and reasonableness.
He further contended that the Commission could never decide the declaration rendered under Article 63A of the Constitution in absence of the evidence by refusing the recording of evidence vide a separate order of the same date. The order stands merged in the impugned order.
The judgment impugned herein is a result of misreading and non-reading of law and material available before the commission. The observations made therein are presumptory, baseless, and without credible legal justifications.
The impugned decision has been rendered on misconception and misunderstanding of the law and the Constitution and it fails to meet the legitimate expectations of the public at large. The impugned order has been rendered by adopting a lenient approach and the respondent Election Commission has failed to adopt the approach to eradicate the menace of horse-trading and floor crossing, said the petitioner.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.