ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court questioned why the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) do not raise concerns in the Senate and the National Assembly regarding election rigging, non-provision of a level-playing field, arrests and use of unfair means against the party’s candidates in the general elections 2024.
A five-judge constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Friday, heard the petitions of PTI, its founder Imran Khan, and leader Afzal Sher Marwat for the constitution of judicial commission to probe the irregularities in the Elections 2024, and the 9th May incidents.
Salman Akram Raja, who represented the PTI, asked the court to order for the constitution of a judicial commission, headed by chief justice and comprising two senior judges of the apex court, to investigate rigging charges, arrest of PTI leaders, and not providing level playing field to the party in general elections.
Raja argued that the Court under Articles 184(3), 187, 190 and the Supreme Court Rules has the power to constitute the judicial commission to probe the mal-treatment and the use of unfair means against the PTI candidates in the general elections.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked why PTI parliamentarians didn’t raise these concerns in the National Assembly and the Senate. He said that Parliament is the appropriate forum for discussing these matters.
The lawyer told the Court that the apex court in 2015 had constituted a commission, headed by the then Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk, and comprising two senior judges, to probe the allegations of rigging in the 2013 elections. Justice Rizvi remarked was it not regarding the “35 punctures”, which was alleged by Imran Khan in 2013 elections.
At the outset, senior advocate Hamid Khan, representing Imran Khan contended that his client had filed a petition to constitute a judicial commission in order to find out who is responsible for the 9th May incidents.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked the counsel to read the prayer clause of his petition, adding if the commission is constituted then what would happen to the case pending before a seven-member constitution against the military courts’ verdicts on 103 persons, arrested in the aftermath of 9th May riots.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked a question, which was also asked by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Mussarat Hilali. Justice Mandokhail inquired from the counsel that if you are claiming that dozens of PTI workers were killed and injured on 9th May then whether you have submitted hospital death certificates or copies of FIRs in that regard. Justice Rizvi said you must have filed at least one death certificate or FIR.
Hamid Khan failed to give satisfactory reply to the court’s query, but again asked the court to order for constituting the inquiry commission. Justice Mandokhail then questioned under which law the Court made such an order.
Imran’s lawyer then contended that the apex court in the Memogate scandal had ordered for constituting commission. Upon that, Justice Rizvi said that this (SC) had also ordered for commission in the cases of killing of children in Nashtar Park, and also set up a commission regarding the killings of lawyers in Quetta, headed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa.
Hamid Khan argued that on 9th May, one political party was targeted, adding that on 9th May, Imran Khan was arrested by State agencies and remained in their custody on May 9 and 10; therefore, was unaware what was happening across the country in those days.
Justice Mazhar remarked the situation has changed a lot, and now the cases of those arrested in the aftermath of 9th May are pending before various courts, and the military courts have decided the cases of 103 persons. He further said that now a seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court is hearing the appeals against the SC five-member bench. He inquired from Hamid Khan that if they accepted his prayer then what would happen to the judgments of Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha, and Chief Justice Yahya Afridi.
Hamid Khan said that the Commission will determine the role of perpetrators of 9th May incidents. Justice Mandokhail then asked a pertinent question, whether any untoward incident took place on May 9. Imran’s lawyer responded that the tragic incident took place on 9th May. He said; therefore, they were demanding an inquiry commission be constituted to determine the roles of persons who had damaged the properties.
Justice Mandokhail questioned about the hundreds of people arrested on 9th May and now their cases are pending before the courts. He asked the counsel to let the courts decide their cases.
When Hamid Khan failed to satisfy the judges, the Court then granted him two weeks to file the death certificates, FIRs or any other documents regarding the petitioner’s claim.
The bench on the application of Sher Afzal Marwat ordered his counsel to argue on the merit of the case on the next date of hearing. The bench issued notice to the Punjab government regarding the application of Sheikh Rashid.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments