SC calls UK High Commissioner's criticism of bat decision 'unjustified'

  • The court maintains that decision was made as per law
29 May, 2024

The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday dismissed British High Commissioner Jane Marriott’s criticism of the court’s ruling regarding Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) election symbol as “unjustified”.

The Supreme Court responded to comments made by Marriott at the Asma Jehangir conference in a letter written by the Registrar of the Supreme Court on the orders of the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

PTI loses bat symbol in major blow ahead of elections

The removal of the bat symbol from PTI by the Supreme Court has been met with criticism.

At the Asma Jahangir conference last month, Marriot expressed concerns about Pakistan’s elections on February 8th.

“…not all parties were formally permitted to contest the elections and that legal processes were used to prevent some political leaders from participation, and to prevent the use of recognizable party symbols,” the top diplomat from Britain had stated.

As the Supreme Court of Pakistan explained, all decisions were made according to the country’s constitution and laws.

The letter said that the top court’s decision concerning the PTI’s “bat” symbol was also made following the constitution and law, adding that any criticism in this regard is unjustified.

Restoration of electoral symbol to PTI: ECP approaches SC against PHC’s decision

As the letter stated, the decision to remove the symbol was based on the fact that the party had not held intra-party elections as required by law.

The letter also referred to the fall of the Mossadegh government in Iran and the Balfour Declaration, emphasizing the necessity to acknowledge past wrongdoings.

The letter noted that the SC has admitted to and corrected its prior errors to prevent them from happening again.

The PTI lost its “bat” symbol just days before the general elections after the Supreme Court reversed a ruling rendered by the Peshawar High Court (PHC). The court ruled that the party could not demonstrate that it had held internal party elections, much less transparent ones.

Read Comments