The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has deferred its decision on the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf’s (PTI) petition for conducting the Feb 8 polls in the province using judicial officials supervised by the judiciary. The Chief Justice Mohammad Ibrahim Khan-led bench, along with Justice Shakeel Ahmad, pondered the case’s continuation after a Supreme Court bench suspended the Lahore High Court’s stay order against the appointment of district returning officers (DROs) and others from the executive.
Petitioner Mohammad Muazzam Butt, representing PTI, clarified that the Supreme Court’s verdict suspended the Lahore High Court’s judgment but did not explicitly address the ongoing case with the PHC against the appointment of deputy commissioners as DROs.
During the proceedings, concerns were raised about the detention orders issued under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) by these appointed officials. The PHC heard representations from the provincial and federal governments, as well as the Election Commission of Pakistan.
Muazzam Butt emphasized PTI’s commitment to timely polls but expressed reservations about the alleged mala fide intent behind the appointment of ROs and DROs. He stated that fair and transparent elections aligned with the Constitution were the party’s priority.
The Chief Justice highlighted the judiciary’s restricted role in elections, subject to National Judicial Policy Making Committee approval. The Additional Attorney General explained the issuance of MPO orders, while the advocate general noted the Supreme Court’s stance on the Election Commission’s mandate for appointing ROs and DROs.
The ECP’s lawyer clarified that political appointments were terminated, and the commission was overseeing matters leading up to the elections. The bench learned that DROs fell within the ECP’s jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court’s intervention included a show-cause notice to the petitioner for challenging their appointments.
The PHC, considering the Supreme Court’s directives for the Feb elections, questioned the petition’s relevance and pondered its jurisdiction.
