PTI’s request for restraining order in funding case dismissed

Published
1
Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah — Photo via IHC website/File
Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Athar Minallah — Photo via IHC website/File

ISLAMABAD: The Islam­abad High Court (IHC) on Thu­r­sday declined the request of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf to issue a restraining order in the foreign funding case.

PTI’s additional general secretary Amir Mehmood Kiani filed the petition before the IHC against Election Commi­ssion of Pakistan’s proceedings related to the foreign funding case and issuance of a show-cause notice by the commission.

An IHC division bench comprising Chief Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Babar Sattar heard the petition.

PTI counsel Anwar Mansoor Khan argued that that issuance of the show-cause notice is likely to adversely affect the petitioner party if other political parties are not treated at par.

In response to the court’s query, the ECP representative stated that the pending proceedings would follow the procedure prescribed under rule 6 of the Political Parties Rules, 2002, provided the commission is satisfied that sufficient material is available to issue a show-cause notice.

The court noted that the ECP has been established under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and it is competent to regulate its own proceedings.

“The PTI’s counsel may raise the same concerns on behalf of the political party before the Commission and we see no reason why they would not be considered so as to ensure level playing field for all the parties”, observed the bench.

“We repose our confidence in the Commission and we have no reason to doubt that the legitimate rights of the petitioner party will not be safeguarded,” the bench further observed.

The court however asked the commission not to pass any adv­erse order against PTI at this stage because the ECP, after concluding the pending pro­ceedings, would be req­u­i­red to consider whether or not to issue a show-cause notice under rule 6 of the Rules of 2002.

The court subsequently disposed of the petition.

Published in Dawn, June 10th, 2022

Opinion

Editorial

Danger ahead
Updated 08 Aug, 2026

Danger ahead

PAKISTAN has already paid a heavy human price this monsoon, even as another dangerous spell approaches. NDMA figures...
Israeli impunity
08 Aug, 2026

Israeli impunity

ANY hope that Hamas’s decision to disarm would lead to a breakthrough has been dashed for one simple reason:...
Flawed investigations
08 Aug, 2026

Flawed investigations

THE botched case of a young Karachi businessman, Mir Raza Ali, who died under suspicious circumstances, took a new...
Terrorist havens
07 Aug, 2026

Terrorist havens

DESPITE the use of both carrots and sticks by the international community, the Afghan Taliban refuse to cut their...
Mineral wealth
Updated 07 Aug, 2026

Mineral wealth

Any future agreements involving critical minerals must be subjected to rigorous legal, financial and technical scrutiny.
Growth denied
07 Aug, 2026

Growth denied

THE Sindh government’s agreement with the World Bank to combine health, nutrition, sanitation, social protection...