LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Thursday restrained the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) from taking any action against Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Imran Khan and sought reply by January 11 in a petition against issuing notice to Imran for removing him as the party head following his disqualification from NA-95.
The ECP on December 05 last year had initiated the proceedings to remove Imran Khan as the PTI chairman in the light of its verdict in the Toshakhana case declaring him disqualified under Article 63 of the Constitution for making false statements and incorrect declaration.
The court also framed three moot points with an observation that the case relates to interpretation of articles of the “Constitution” and certain provisions of the Election Act 2017 involving infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner.
The points include whether the ECP can pass any declaration in the light of article 218 of the Constitution and the judgments passed by the Supreme Court and whether the word “declaration” falls under the wording “conduct” and “organize” as used under article 218(3) and 219.
Removal from PTI’s chairmanship: Imran moves LHC against ECP
The court would also examine whether power of declaration has specifically been mentioned in the Election Act and the rules framed there under in the light of judgments of the Supreme Court.
Earlier, Imran’s counsel contended before the court that the ECP did not have the authority to remove someone from the position of party chairman.
He said, the ECP could become a plaintiff in a matter of filing false statement and added it could not pass a verdict as it did not fall within its jurisdiction.
He also sought interpretation of articles 218(3) & 219 read with articles 4 & 5 of the Constitution and sections 8(c) & 9 of the Election Act, 2017 in the light of Article 62(f) of the Constitution.
The counsel maintained that the pivotal point involved in this case was whether the ECP could pass any declaration which was not mentioned under article 218(3) of the Constitution.
On a court’s query, the counsel replied that the party had challenged the verdict of the ECP before the Islamabad High Court but the case had not yet been decided.
A counsel of the ECP contended that the verdict was issued on a reference forwarded to the ECP by Speaker National Assembly. He said the matter was forwarded to the ECP as the law to disqualify any lawmaker is enshrined in the Constitution.
He objected to maintainability of the petition on the touchstone of Articles 62(3) and 222 of the Constitution coupled with pendency of the order challenged by the petitioner before the Islamabad High Court.
The court, however, observed that the Supreme Court in its order observed that all the courts could decide the election petition.
The court also observed that the Supreme Court in a judgment titled “Ali Asjad Malhi versus Ms Syeda Nosheen Iftikhar and others” (PLD 2023) ruled that the court could interfere in the ECP’s decision when these involve the exercise of illegal, or malafide, or manifestly arbitrary or unjustifiable jurisdiction.
Imran Khan through his counsel pleaded in his petition that the cognizance and exercise of jurisdiction by the ECP for debarring Imran from holding the office of the party chairman on the basis of alleged incorrect statement of assets and subsequent disqualification is unlawful and contrary to the Constitution.
He said the ECP issued the impugned notice to the petitioner on December 07 last for removing him from the office of the party on the pretext of disqualification is unlawful. He argued that the entire scheme of the qualification and the Act has been misconstrued by the ECP. He said the precedent set by the Supreme Court in disqualification of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif has been misapplied to the detriment of the petitioner. He said no declaration of disqualification under article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution has been passed by any court of law against the petitioner.
He argued that the ECP cannot issue the impugned notice to the petitioner since it never made a declaration against him under the article 62(1)(f).
“In fact the impugned findings of ECP are to the detriment of the entire scheme of parliamentary democracy which is not warranted in law and are liable to be set aside by the court,” he added.
He, therefore, prayed the court to declare the impugned notice issued to the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional. He further prayed the court to hold that the findings of the ECP against the petitioner of making false statements about his assets and liabilities and subsequent disqualification are unlawful and without lawful authority.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.