In last bid to get “BAT” back PTI reaches SC
On Thursday, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) took its case to the Supreme Court (SC) challenging the Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) decision to restore the Election Commission’s annulment of the PTI’s intra-party polls and the subsequent withdrawal of its electoral symbol, the cricket bat. Filed by party chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, the petition aims to have the PHC’s interim order overturned. The plea argues that the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) application was inadmissible, contending that the electoral watchdog should not be involved in the case and that its decision lacked supporting evidence.
The petitioner asserts that the PHC overlooked crucial facts and did not ensure that legal requirements were met before announcing the decision, alleging discrimination against the PTI compared to other political parties. Barrister Gohar emphasized the urgency of the matter, citing the looming deadline for scrutiny of nomination papers and the need to distribute tickets. The party seeks an expedited listing of the case, expressing the hope to contest elections with its original electoral symbol.
ECP determined to its stanceÂ
On December 22, the ECP withdrew the PTI’s electoral symbol for the February 8 election, citing the party’s failure to conduct intra-party polls in accordance with its constitution and election laws. The PTI appealed to the PHC, which temporarily suspended the ECP’s decision on December 26, instructing the commission to publish the PTI’s intra-party poll certificate and restore the party’s election symbol until January 9.
More to read:Details about Maryam Nawaz’s mind-blowing net worth revealed
In response, the ECP filed an intra-court appeal in the PHC, arguing that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by suspending the commission’s declaration on the PTI’s intra-party polls and the subsequent revocation of its election symbol. The PHC accepted the commission’s review plea a day earlier, determining that the interim order on December 26 was an “ex parte order” as it was issued without affording the commission an opportunity for a hearing.