ISLAMABAD: After losing its iconic poll symbol ‘bat’, a visibly disappointed PTI on Monday withdrew its contempt of court petition against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) from the Supreme Court.

The petition was initially filed to ensure a level playing field for the party in the election arena.

“The party wants to resort to the people’s court for the cause of democracy and for the citizens of Pakistan,” said senior counsel Sardar Latif Khosa before a three-judge SC bench consisting of Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali.

In a seemingly sarcastic manner, the counsel expressed his “gratitude” and “thanks” to the court, disclosing that it was his instruction to seek the withdrawal of the case from the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, when CJP Isa asked the counsel whether he wanted to argue his case or not, the counsel stated that the decision on Jan 13, denying the election symbol of the bat, had cost the party 230 reserved seats. He added that the party had come to seek a level playing field from the court, but the verdict announced at 11:30pm on Jan 13 had scattered the party, the counsel deplored.

Lawyer says SC decision destroys democracy, deprives 250 million people of voting rights

“What expectation could we have of the court ensuring a level playing field when the party lost 230 seats with one stroke of a pen?” lamented the counsel, adding that candidates fielded by the party in the upcoming Feb 8 general elections were being assigned election symbols like “donga” (tureen) or glass by the ECP. The party has decided to appeal to the court of 250 million people, Mr Khosa said.

“To accept or not to accept the judgement is the choice of the counsel, but do you want to argue the case or not?” CJP asked, adding that the Jan 13 judgement was the verdict of the Supreme Court and not the three-judge bench.

The counsel regretted that even the leader of the party with which PTI entered into an alliance was picked up, and later he was asked to hold a press conference denying the alliance. He added that cases are being lodged against party members for entering into the election alliance.

The ultimate loser after the Jan 13 decision is democracy, the counsel regretted, adding that the party’s contenders will now contest the elections as independent candidates.

The CJP, however, recalled that during the Jan 13 hearing, the Supreme Court had repeatedly asked PTI lawyers to show documentary evidence of holding intra-party elections, adding that the court cannot intervene if the party did not like the decision.

The court also recalled how it had issued directions to the election commission earlier to ensure a level playing field, CJP observed, adding that the court can only issue orders but cannot substitute itself in place of the government.

During the hearing, Justice Hilali observed whether the counsel was accusing the ECP of not being fair and of targeting a particular political party, as PTI was not being allowed to enter into an election alliance with a party.

The counsel, however, retorted that how could “we now say that the elections will be held in a free and fair manner”.

Later, the court disposed of the matter after PTI withdrew it.

‘Black day’

Later, while talking to the media, Mr Khosa said the Supreme Court’s decision had destroyed democracy in the country, deeming it a black day as 250 million people were deprived of the right to vote.

He mentioned that the court did not bother to consider the elections of other parties while announcing the decision against the PTI.

“I want to ask if Akbar S. Babar can contest the election against Imran Khan or for the seat of party chairman. Did anyone file nomination papers against Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, Asif Ali Zardari, or Nawaz Sharif during intra-party elections?”

He mentioned that he personally conducted elections for the PPP while serving as secretary general.

“Only one nomination paper was filed for the chairman, and Mr Bhutto-Zardari became the party chairman. Similarly, only one nomination paper was submitted for the secretary general, and I assumed the role. Likewise, only one nomination each was filed for the information secretary, and the treasurer. The Chief Election Commissioner signed the results, and I submitted them to the ECP. However, the ECP did not question why only one nomination paper was filed for each seat,” he said.

Published in Dawn, January 16th, 2024