The Peshawar High Court rejected a plea from a Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) leader challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) notifications appointing executive officers as district returning officers and returning officers for the upcoming elections.
A panel of judges, including Chief Justice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad of the Peshawar High Court, cited a Supreme Court order from December 15 in their ruling. They stated, “In view of the above, we are of the view that Hon’ble Supreme Court has already taken cognisance of the matter, in which final judgment is yet to be passed, therefore, we lay our hands off in this matter.” The court declared the petition not maintainable and dismissed it in limine without commenting on the merits of the case.
The bench, for the reasons mentioned earlier, concluded without commenting on the merits of the case that “this petition, on the face of it, is factually and legally not maintainable, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.”
On December 18, a judgment was reserved by the bench on the petition filed by Mohammad Muazzam Butt, a senior lawyer and spokesperson for PTI. The petition sought orders for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to conduct general elections in the province through judicial officers under the supervision of the judiciary. Additionally, the petitioner requested orders to restrain the ECP, provincial government, and governor from interfering in the electoral process.
A divisional bench of the Peshawar High Court declared a petition not maintainable on Thursday. The petition in question had been filed by Mohammad Muazzam Butt, a senior lawyer and spokesperson for PTI. The petition sought orders for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to conduct general elections in the province through judicial officers under the supervision of the judiciary. Additionally, the petitioner requested orders to restrain the ECP, provincial government, and governor from interfering in the electoral process. The divisional bench, consisting of Chief Justice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad, referred to a Supreme Court order of December 15, stating that the Supreme Court had already taken cognizance of the matter, and the petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The bench concluded that it would not comment on the merits of the case, dismissing the petition in limine.
In a similar case, the Supreme Court had suspended a Lahore High Court order on December 15, which had suspended ECP’s notifications for appointing district returning officers (DROs), returning officers (ROs), and assistant returning officers (AROs) for the elections. Initially, when the petition was filed in November 2023, ECP had not issued the December 11 notifications of appointment of DROs, ROs, and AROs. The petitioner later filed an amended plea, seeking to set aside the notifications.
The Peshawar High Court, in its detailed 22-page judgment authored by Justice Shakeel Ahmad, emphasized the importance of conducting elections to maintain the democratic process, uphold the principles of democracy, and ensure public trust in the political system. The court noted that election disputes should be resolved promptly to avoid delays that could undermine public confidence in the electoral process.
The petitioner, Mohammad Muazzam Butt, argued that the appointment of DROs and ROs who previously issued illegal cases against PTI workers raised concerns about the fairness of the elections. He contended that free and fair polls would not be possible under the supervision of the same executive officers who were appointed as DROs. The ECP’s counsel argued that the high court’s registrar suggested approaching the National Judicial Policy Making Committee to decide the extent of judicial involvement in the election process.
In conclusion, the divisional bench dismissed the petition as not maintainable, referring to the Supreme Court’s order of December 15, which had already taken cognizance of the matter. The bench avoided commenting on the merits of the case and upheld the dismissal in limine.
