The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) on Thursday issued detailed verdict against alloting the ‘’bat’’ symbol to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
In its 38-page verdict, the SC held the PTI officials responsible for losing the ‘’bat’’ symbol. ‘’It is not an ordinary thing to not hold intraparty elections. The Election Commission of Pakistan had issued PTI notices on numerous occasions. But the intraparty elections were not held.’’
‘’14 PTI candidates had complained about not getting the right to contest the elections that were held. The responsibility lies with those who are running the party affairs and do not want to uphold democracy within the party,’’ the SC said.
The apex court stated: ‘’Any of the political parties should not be deprived of the electoral symbol for any ordinary violation. However, not holding intra-party elections is the biggest violation of the constitution and law.’’
The SC said: ‘’The PTI had kept its own members unaware about the intraparty elections. According to the law, the PTI cannot be allotted the bat symbol. The electoral watchdog can take back the election symbol from the political party, according to the Election Act. As it is mentioned in the Election Act, to hold the intraparty elections in connection with the party’s constitution,
Raising objections to the verdict of the Peshawar High Court (PHC), the SC said: ‘’This is not possible to understand that the petitioner was asked to appear before the electoral watchdog. After 20 days, it had been said the ECP could not do anything pertaining to the intraparty elections.’’
‘’The PHC has not even waited for the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) final decision, where the matter was being heard by the larger bench,’’ the apex court said.
‘’It was also emphasised in the verdict that if any person comes unopposed, then he will be considered elected. However, when everybody is elected unopposed and there is no evidence of the elections, then this is a separate matter.’’
‘’Omar Ayub used to consider him for a post similar to that of the PTI Secretary General, whereas Barrister Gohar Ali Khan made himself the party chairman. Although both of them had no solid documented record of having the respective posts,’’ the court mentioned.
