PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has rejected the petition of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf-backed MNA Sohail Sultan against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s proceedings on a reference sent by the National Assembly’s speaker for the lawmaker’s disqualification.

A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Mohammad Faheem Wali pronounced a short order following completion of arguments by different sides in the case.

The petitioner had requested the court to quash the decision of the National Assembly’s speaker to send a reference to the ECP for his disqualification and the subsequent proceedings by the commission.

He had also sought interim relief from the court requesting to suspend the impugned proceedings initiated by the ECP and restraining the ECP and the NA speaker from taking any action against him.

Reference against PTI-backed Sohail Sultan was sent by NA speaker

The court had granted him interim relief on Oct 17, 2024, and had suspended proceedings initiated by the ECP on the impugned reference.

The ECP sent a notice to the petitioner on Oct 10, 2024, saying the matter has been fixed for regular hearing on Oct 21, 2024, so he should appear before it or send in his counsel.

Complaint in the reference against the petitioner was a resident of Swat named Nasrullah Khan.

Barrister Sultan Mohammad Khan appeared for that complainant and said that NA Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq had received a reference from his client, who said MNA Sohail Sultan was appointed assistant advocate general in 2018 and his services were terminated in March 2023.

He added that the general elections were held on Feb 8, 2024, and therefore, the mandatory period of two years provided in Article 63(1) (K) of the Constitution had yet not lapsed since the MNA ceased to be “in service of Pakistan.”

He argued that the MNA was not qualified to become a lawmaker, so he should be disqualified from holding that office.

Barrister Sultan argued that in Article 260 of the Constitution there were certain exceptions given in relation to ‘service of Pakistan’ wherein the post of an assistant advocate general (AAG) had not been given, which meant that the condition of ‘lapsing of two years’ for participating in the polls was applicable to him.

He argued that the petitioner was a law-aware person and he had concealed these facts from the returning officer and ECP despite clearly knowing that the same amounted to disqualification.

The lawyer contended that these facts were indisputable.

“The high court can’t give a clean chit to a person who had hidden his disqualification at the relevant time,” he argued, adding that the court should not be providing relief to such a person.

The lawyer contended that Article 63 (2) of the Constitution clearly provided that if any question of disqualification of a member of the Parliament arose, the speaker was empowered to refer the matter to the ECP within 30 days.

He added that in the instant case the speaker had applied his independent mind on the complaint of his client and referred the same to the ECP.

The counsel further argued that the petition was premature as so far no adverse order had been passed against the petitioner.

He cautioned the bench that if relief was provided to the petitioner it would turn Article 63(1) (K) and article 63(2) of the Constitution redundant. In that case, the counsel said, the speaker would need approval from the high court in each and every case before sending a reference to the ECP.

A panel of lawyers appeared for the petitioner and argued that he had filed nomination papers for the general elections, which were duly scrutinised and accepted by the returning officer on Dec 28, 2023.

They said that no one objected to their client’s nomination papers before his election as MNA.

The counsel said that on Sept 6, 2024, the respondent Nasrullah filed a complaint before the speaker of the NA under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, seeking disqualification of the petitioner.

They said that the speaker, for ulterior motives and mala fide intentions, deliberately kept the petitioner in the dark regarding the complaint against him.

The lawyers added that the petitioner was not made part of any proceedings conducted by the speaker nor was he given free and fair opportunity to defend himself that was contrary to Article 10-A of the Constitution.

They added that the speaker made the impugned decision on Oct 7 and referred the matter to the ECP, which fixed the reference for regular hearing on Oct 21.

The counsel argued that Article 225 of the Constitution laid an absolute bar by providing that no election to a House or a provincial assembly should be called in question except by an election petition presented to such a tribunal and in such a manner as may be determined by the Election Act.

They added that none of the contesting candidates had approached the election tribunal to challenge the election of the petitioner.

Additional attorney general Sanaullah, ECP special secretary (law) Arshid Khan, additional director general (law) Khurram Shehzad and other officials also turned up and opposed the petition.

Published in Dawn, December 20th, 2025