MUZAFFARABAD: Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) retired Justice Ghulam Mustafa Mughal on Thursday reserved his decision after hearing arguments from both sides on PML-N candidate Engr Mohsin Aziz’s plea challenging the election of his rival, Prime Minister Faisal Mumtaz Rathore of the PPP, amid allegations of tampering with results in LA-17 (Haveli).
Talking to journalists, his lawyer, Raja Sajjad Ahmed, said Mr Aziz had submitted an application to the returning officer (RO) for LA-17 late on the night of polling day, alleging that the results of 10 polling stations issued by the respective presiding officers soon after counting were entirely different from those being recorded by the RO in the initial statement of count.
According to him, the RO wrote on the application that he would decide the matter on Thursday after seeking guidance from the CEC. Around the same time, thousands of PML-N workers had stormed and virtually cordoned off the RO’s office at the district courts to protest what they believed was “mandate theft”.
Form 27 was issued by the RO on the night of Aug 11-12. The form mentioned Forward Kahuta as the place and Aug 11 as the date of issuance.
According to Mr Ahmed, the votes of government servants deployed on election duty in district Haveli were counted by the concerned presiding officer on Form 24 in Muzaffarabad on Aug 12. It was, therefore, shocking that the RO had issued the final result in Form 27 before waiting for that tally and declared Mr Rathore the winner.
Mr Ahmed further claimed that certified copies of Form 24 obtained from the RO’s office differed from those issued to polling agents. “There is the same handwriting [on all forms], and on many forms there are no signatures of the presiding officer,” he said.
He informed the media that an additional application under Section 9 of the Elections Act, 2020, had also been submitted to the CEC, seeking an inquiry into the alleged illegal practice committed by election duty staff “with the connivance of the rival candidate”.
He said that when the CEC asked why Mr Rathore had not initially been made a party, he explained that his client’s basic plea was for a recount under Section 66 of the Elections Act, 2020, read with Sections 4 and 8. He added that a subsequent application to implead Mr Rathore was allowed by the CEC and added to the record.
Separately, advocate Syed Zulqarnain Raza Naqvi appeared on behalf of Mr Rathore and opposed the application, terming it legally untenable.
Defending the final result issued by the RO, he maintained that the law provided no appeal against the order.
He argued that the only remedy available to Mr Aziz was an election tribunal.
The CEC is expected to announce his decision on Friday (today) or Saturday.
Published in Dawn, August 14th, 2026
