The Pakistan Supreme Court (SCP) ruled on Thursday that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) will not be given the ”bat” symbol.
In its 38-page decision, the Supreme Court held PTI officials accountable for losing the ”bat” sign. “It is unusual not to hold intraparty elections.” The Election Commission of Pakistan had sent PTI notices on multiple occasions. However, the intraparty elections were not held.
”14 PTI candidates complained about not being able to contest the elections. The obligation lies with individuals in charge of party affairs who refuse to maintain democracy within the party, according to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court declared, ”Any political party should not be denied the election emblem for any routine infraction. However, not holding intra-party elections is the most serious violation of the constitution and law.
The Supreme Court stated: “The PTI had kept its own members unaware of the intraparty elections.” According to the law, the PTI cannot be given the bat sign. According to the Election Act, the electoral watchdog has the authority to take back the political party’s election emblem. As stated in the Election Act, to hold intraparty elections in accordance with the party’s constitution.
The SC objected to the Peshawar High Court’s (PHC) decision, saying: ”It is impossible to fathom that the petitioner was summoned to appear before the electoral watchdog. After 20 days, it was said that the ECP could not do anything regarding 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 Supreme Court stated.
”The ruling also said that if a person runs unopposed, he is considered elected. However, when everyone is elected unopposed and there is no documentation of the elections, this is a different issue.
”Omar Ayub considered him for a position comparable to that of PTI Secretary General, but Barrister Gohar Ali Khan appointed himself party chairman. Despite the fact that neither of them had a solid recorded record of holding their respective positions, the court stated.
