PTI seeks larger bench in ‘bat’ symbol review case

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) on Saturday moved a fresh application before the Supreme Court, requesting for constituting a larger bench to hear its review petition in the election symbol case.

The PTI asked the SC to place the fresh application before a three-judge committee for the constitution of a bench comprising not less than five, and preferably at least eight judges, of the apex court to hear the matter, though the court while putting off the proceedings on an application seeking yet another adjournment on Oct 11 had cautioned that no further request for adjournment will be entertained.

A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, is scheduled to resume on Monday the hearing of the review petition moved by the PTI against the Jan 13 court ruling that upheld the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) decision to deny it the election symbol of cricket bat.

In its fresh application filed on behalf of senior counsel Hamid Khan, the PTI argued that the judgement under review was per-in-curiam (without jurisdiction) as it was passed by a bench that was “not legally constituted” under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.

Hamid Khan wants ‘unbiased’ judges to hear cases against opposition party

It recalled that the PTI argued during hearing in the election symbol case that the ECP, being a constitutional and statutory body performing regulatory and quasi-judicial functions, was not an “aggrieved person”. Therefore, its insistence upon depriving the party of its election symbol through its decision made it a “partisan party” in contravention of the mandate under Article 218(3).

It pleaded that the bat symbol case was per-in-curam as it ignored two judgements of the Supreme Court larger bench in the 1988 Benazir Bhutto case and 1989 Benazir Bhutto case and more importantly, overlooked the legislative changes having taken place in Article 17 through the 18th Amendment whereby clause (4) was omitted. The clause had provided the legislative basis for Section 215 of the Elections Act, 2017.

The PTI was also surprised to note that the ECP contested as a “primary contesting party” against it as well as the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) during the first round of litigation in the SC, though ECP’s prime function, under Article 218(3), is to conduct honestly, justly, fairly, in accordance with law, and that corrupt practices are guarded against.

In the present case, several political parties made counter claims regarding their right to the disputed reserved seats, and the ECP decided these counter claims as an adjudicatory body. The function performed by the ECP in the present case was, therefore, quasi-judicial.

‘Biased judges’

In another application, Hamid Khan alleged that the benches headed by CJP Qazi Faiz Isa and certain other judges had been consistently deciding cases against the PTI regardless of merits of such cases and past judicial precedents in their favour. It gave rise to a very strong perception that the CJP allegedly and certain other judges allegedly had strong bias against the party, he regretted.

According to the application, the executive authorities such as the ECP openly defied such orders despite their duties to act in compliance with SC orders. This situation has encouraged other authorities like the National Assembly speaker to call upon the ECP to openly defy the July 12 short order of the SC, which act is clearly against the basic features of the Constitution.

Published in Dawn, October 20th, 2024