A district and sessions court in Islamabad has acquitted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief and former Prime Minister Imran Khan in a case about the party’s `Bat’ election symbol. Several other defendants, mostly senior PTI leaders, were also acquitted in the case which had been registered at Islamabad’s Aabpara police station.
Besides Imran Khan, other defendants cleared in the case included Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Sheikh Rasheed, Shehryar Afridi, Faisal Javed, Raja Khurram Nawaz, Ali Nawaz Awan, Asad Qaiser and some others. Judicial Magistrate Yasir Mahmood announced the verdict, which had been reserved some days ago, on Tuesday, according to a report of The Express Tribune.
This case was filed against Imran Khan and others following protests over Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) decision to deny ‘Bat’ symbol to PTI for elections held on February 8 this year. A day earlier, on July 1 (M0nday), at least 140 PTI workers were acquitted in a case related to holding a rally before the general elections. Of late, it seems more cases against PTI workers and top leaders are now getting decided in different courts in a favourable manner.
Incidentally, the denial of `Bat’ symbol to PTI by the ECP had led to a situation that its candidates had to fight elections as independents on different symbols. This put them at a distinct disadvantage both in elections of the provincial assemblies and the National Assembly.
Meanwhile, Justice Athar Minallah remarked in the Supreme Court on Tuesday that it is clear now that the election commission had misinterpreted the court judgment on the `Bat’ symbol. He questioned if the court should validate “unconstitutional interpretation’’ made by the electoral body. “Do you want us to revive the doctrine of necessity?” Justice Athar Minallah asked Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan during the hearing of a case pertaining to ECP.
Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, however, observed that the court applies the Constitution and law, not the requirements of justice. “Let Pakistan go on the path of Constitution,” the CJP remarked. But Justice Athar Minallah again questioned if this court should validate the worst violation of the Constitution and ignore the elephant in the room.
Remarks by other judges on the Full Bench in the case also show that there was clear polarisation on the question of how ECP had deliberately denied a level playing field to PTI during and after elections. Justice Munib Akhtar raised questions over the credibility of ECP, asking how the electoral body could deprive the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) of its reserved seats in the National and provincial assemblies after accepting it as a parliamentary party.
Incidentally, all independents (PTI candidates who fought on different symbols) joined the SIC hoping that the ECP will allot them reserved seats in proportion to their numbers. Whether it be in various provincial assemblies or the National Assembly. However, the ECP did not allocate any reserved seats to the SIC (which elected PTI leaders had joined) and this had led to litigation which is now before the Supreme Court.
A 13-member Full Court is presently hearing an appeal filed by the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) challenging the verdict of Peshawar High Court (PHC) denying the party reserved seats for women and minorities in the National and provincial assemblies. Besides CJP Isa, othe members of the bench are Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
The important legal and technical point before the Supreme Court is whether the SIC is recognised as a “political party’’. This has become a ticklish issue dividing the judges on the Bench sharply on different questions as also constitutional questions. CJP Isa is considered anti-PTI and at one time, some PTI leaders had argued that Justice Isa should recuse himself from hearing any cases pertaining to it.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Munib Akhtar and a couple of other judges on the Bench have asked searching questions to the AG. Their stance has often run contrary to CJP Isa’s throughout the hearing of the case pertaining to allotment of reserved seats to SIC (thereby PTI indirectly). “According to you, under Article 51, the Sunni Ittehad Council is not a political party but has become a parliamentary party after winning the by-election?” Justice Yahya Afridi asked the AG.
The hearing in the case was telecast live on YouTube of the Supreme Court and was watched by lakhs of people. An impression has gone around that CJP Isa is repeatedly coming to the rescue of the ECP while some other judges are not inclined to do so.
