The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, wherein the former ruling party sought to delay the local body elections in Sindh. Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan heard the petition in his chambers and declared that the Sindh High Court (SHC) was the “competent forum” to seek the “implementation of such judgements”. According to the apex court’s order issued on Tuesday, the petitioners had approached the SC by “invoking” its jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan – which states that “without prejudice to the provisions of Article 199, the Supreme Court shall, if it considers that a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter I of Part II is involved have the power to make an order of the nature mentioned in the said Article”.
However, the order maintained that “in view of the foregoing” of approaching the SHC, the objection raised by the registrar’s office was valid and upheld. PTI’s appeal was “dismissed” but the appellants were permitted to “approach the competent forum for redressal for their grievances”.
Earlier this month, PTI Sindh Chapter President Ali Zaidi filed a petition in the SC, seeking to postpone upcoming local body elections due to the non-completion of delimitations and alleged non-compliance with the apex court verdict on local bodies.
The plea contended that the polls should be held after the process of delimitation is completed and the Sindh government complied with the apex court’s verdict on the local bodies. The petitioner prayed the court to set aside the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) notifications scheduling local government elections in the province.
“Elections cannot be scheduled by the ECP and balloting cannot take place without the Government of Sindh first complying with the directions in the Supreme Court’s judgment requiring necessary amendments to the Sindh Local Government Act 2013,” read the petition. The PTI’s application was returned with objections by the SC registrar’s office.
