SC’s order on intra-party polls: Review petition of PTI adjourned over its lawyers’ absence

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) adjourned the review petition of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as none of its lawyers appeared to argue the petition against the SC’s order/judgment on intra-party elections.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarat Hilali on January 13 upheld the verdict of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) that there were many irregularities in PTI’s intra-party elections, thus, deprived the PTI from its elections symbol of “cricket bat”.

The Court on 25th January passed the judgment. The PTI has sought the review of the SC’s order, and of the judgment.

The Court’s order said; “In the circumstances, we are not persuaded to adjourn the case, however, in the interest of justice and only by way of indulgence we do so but make it clear that no further request for adjournment will be entertained, and we expect that the case to proceed on the next date.”

Senior advocate Hamid Khan yesterday (Thursday) through AOR filed an application for adjournment. It says; “Hamid Khan has pressing family engagement at Lahore on October 11.” The chief justice remarked, what a novel way of seeking adjournment. He said now the Supreme Court has video-link facility for the convenience of lawyers despite that they seek adjournment.

The Court noted that the nature of engagement is not disclosed nor AOR Anis Muhammad Shehzad is in attendance. The order mentioned that the counsel must know that merely filing an adjournment application does not mean that the case will be adjourned.

The chief justice inquired where are the other counsels of the petitioner (PTI), which besides Hamid Khan was represented by Barrister Ali Zafar, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, Ajmal Ghaffar Toor, Niazullah Khan Niazi and Muhammad Sharif Janjua, who was AOR earlier, but now Anis Muhammad Shehzad is AOR. If Hamid Khan had some pressing engagement, then any of the other lawyers could have appeared.

Akbar S Babar’s lawyer said that another intra-party election was held on 3rd March. He said “if the Court is available tomorrow (Saturday) then should hear it, as they are available.”

The chief justice said there are proverbial drum-beaters who have not read the judgment but are criticising it, adding the judgment is about holding of IPE, and not about “cricket bat” symbol. The CJP said Hamid Khan quoting him while criticising the judgment. This case has intentionally been misreported, and drum-beaters actually have not read the judgment. “We considered this (Hamid) man of principles.”

Justice Faez said after the general elections they were expecting that the PTI will immediately hold IPE. He questioned what was wrong to ask the PTI to hold IPE.

The chief justice said the PTI review was fixed on May 29, but Ali Zafar sought adjournment. He said the lawyers make propaganda outside the courtroom, but do not appear and argue. They want bench and date of their choice. The case was adjourned until October 21.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024