The PTI moved the Supreme Court on Thursday on the party symbol issue as its chairman Barrister Ali Gohar expressed his confidence to get the “bat” for the February 8 general elections.

It is the Peshawar High Court’s decision of accepting the review petition filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), which is now challenged in the country’s top court, after it was deprived of an opportunity to field party candidates in the elections.

The PTI chairman has requested the Supreme Court to fix the matter for hearing tomorrow (Friday) due to the urgent nature of the case.

He told reporters that they wanted a swift action by the Supreme Court as the time period set for the scrutiny of nomination papers, which was to be followed by allotment of party tickets.

WHY THE RUSH?

Earlier on Wednesday, the Peshawar High Court (PHC) accepted the review plea filed by the ECP, restoring the December 22 orders under which the PTI was deprived of “bat”.

Thus, the top provincial court reversed the single-bench’s December 26 verdict, which had suspended the ECP decision till January 9, enabling the PTI to use its party symbol.

The review petition said the ECP was responsible for conducting elections honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law by making necessary arrangements ahead of the polls.

It mentioned that the single-member bench observed that “election is a process which starts with the issuance of the election programme and consists of the various links and stages in that behalf as, filing of nomination papers, their scrutiny, the hearing of objections and the holding of actual polls. If any of these links is challenged it really (is) tantamount to challenging the said process of election.”

“This case implies that where a violation of the standards mentioned in Article 218(3) has not as yet taken place,” it noted, adding that the ECP was legally empowered under Article 218(3) to exercise its powers pre-emptively in order to avoid a violation of these standards.

Moreover, the plea said that the petitioners had sought “interim relief” for the suspension of ECP’s order and, therefore, the court could not grant final relief as an interim relief, which meant that the single-bench judgment was against the law as well as against a Supreme Court verdict issued in 1997.

BAT COULDN’T BE SECURED IN LAHORE AS WELL

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday declared that the petition filed to seek restoration of “bat” as the PTI party symbol was unmaintainable, a day after the Peshawar High Court (PHC) reversed the orders passed by a single member bench.

In its detailed judgment, the LHC said it could not interfere in a matter which was under consideration by the Supreme Court and the Peshawar High Court.

Earlier, as a local lawyer moved the LHC to get the “bat” secured, the single-member bench on Wednesday had reserved its judgment on the issue.

The announcement was made by Justice Jawad Hassan who had earlier stated that the judgment would be delivered today (Tuesday).

“[I] will announce the verdict today [Wednesday]. My decision would be seen as judicial precedent. [Just] wait for it,” Justice Hassan remarked.

During the hearing, the judge noted the Supreme Court had already affirmed that there shouldn’t be any interference in matters related to elections [at the high court level]. The Tehreek-e-Insaf should establish a research wing to file cases after a detailed study, he remarked.

At the same time, the federal government representative opposed the petition, calling it unmaintainable. The petitioner wasn’t an affected party, as the plea had been filed by the lawyer in personal capacity, he added.

Moreover, the law officer said that the federal government wasn’t made a party in the petition while the Supreme Court had clearly warned against interference in election process.

On the other hand, the petitioner, who is a PTI member, argued that the PHC had issued a stay order to cancel the orders passed by the ECP [till Jan 9], meaning that the PTI would have “bat” as party symbol in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but not in Punjab.

The LHC, he pleaded, could issue similar directives for Punjab.

However, the court asked the petitioner to submit written replies to some important questions, which include whether a high court could interfere in the matters already sub-judice with the Supreme Court. The other query was if any party had challenged Section 2015 of the Election Act.