Imran Khan, a former prime minister, and PTI leaders Asad Umar and Fawad Chaudhry received notifications from the Supreme Court on Tuesday in matters involving the contempt of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).
The case was tried in the supreme court in Islamabad by a three-judge panel that included Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ayesha Malik, and recently elevated Justice Athar Minallah.
Earlier, the ECP filed a petition through Advocate Sajeel Sheryar Swati, requesting that the six cases be consolidated before a single high court rather than defending the commission’s position over the issuance of contempt notices against PTI leaders in various high courts.
The recipients, however, had contested the same in front of various high courts, including the Lahore High Court, its Rawalpindi bench, the Sindh High Court, and the Islamabad High Court, on the grounds that Section 10 of the Elections Act, the statutory provision regarding the commission’s authority to punish for contempt, was unconstitutional.
The Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 (V of 2003), or any other law pertaining to contempt of court, shall have effect in accordance with the Election Act 2017, Section 10 titled “Power to punish for contempt,” which states that the “election commission may exercise the same power as the high court to punish any person for contempt of court.”
The PTI leaders also requested a declarative dismissal of the accusations from the high courts. The top court noted at the beginning of the hearing in response to the ECP’s plea that the election commission had made applications in several high courts requesting the transfer of all the cases to one high court. The court ordered the parties to “pursue the cases or be ready for local body elections.”
The chief justice continued by stating that the election commission is using Article 186-A as support for its position. He inquired as to whether there had ever been a situation in which the SC had combined matters from various high courts.
According to the website for the National Assembly, Article 186-A of the Constitution, titled “Power of the Supreme Court to Transfer Cases,” states that the “top court may, if it considers it expedient to do so in the interest of justice, transfer any case, appeal, or other proceedings pending before any high court to any other high court.”
In response to the CJP, the election commission’s attorney stated that the SC had ordered the consolidation of all income tax matters to one high court in 1999.
Justice Bandial stated that in order to combine all of the high court cases after hearing this, a strong legal argument must be made. He enquired as to the identity of the petitioners in the high courts’
In response, the election commission’s attorney, Swati, stated that the PTI chairman and party members Fawad and Umar have filed cases against the electoral commission in several high courts around the nation.
Justice Malik continued by reminding the electoral commission’s legal representative that the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority cases had already been decided by the supreme court and would not be combined.
Justice Minallah said at the conclusion of the session that the Supreme Court had combined all of the high court issues involving Haj assistance into a single court.
If the election commission lawsuits are kept up in several courts, ECP advocate Swati said, there will be conflicting decisions.
The hearing was put on hold indefinitely.
Comments are closed.