ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Usman Dar moved the Supreme Court against its earlier judgement in which it had declared Khawaja Asif victorious from Sialkot NA-110.
On November 11, 2016, the Supreme Court decided an election mathich the PTI had staged a countrywide sit-in and sought a vote audit and reelection through election petitions.
ter, upholding the verdict of the election tribunal.
The NA-110 constituency was one of the four constituencies for w
Asif had won the NA-110 seat with 92,803 votes in the general election 2013 while Dar had bagged 71,525 votes.
The court had dismissed Dar’s appeal, seeking Asif’s disqualification.
The SC in its short order had ruled that the reasons for rejection of the appeal would be recorded later.
Dar has again filed a review petition under Article 188 of the constitution against the short order.
“This court erroneously applied the approach of Alternate Dispute Resolution or the substitutive exercise of powers, while passing impugned (earlier) judgment,” the review petition stated.
The review petition added that while deciding the question of validity of election which is not conducted in accordance with the constitution, law, rules and the relevant instructions, can hold the field, material facts were overlooked by court regarding rigging managed by Khawaja Asif.
“It also appears on the record that judgment passed by this court does not entirely meet the standard of Article 218 (3) of the Constitution,” the petition stated, adding that it appeared on the record that the requirements of Section 103 (c) of Representation of People Act (ROPA) 1976 were not adhered to during the election process.
Apparently, it stated, provisions of Section 70 (a) of ROPA 1976 are not correctly interpreted in the court’s judgement regarding the election matter of NA-110, adding that provisions of Section 33 of the Act have become redundant in view of the deliverance of judgment under review.
“The court overlooked this fact that the appellate court cannot shed-off the responsibility/mandated upon it under the law to act in the manner of the continuation of proceeding of the trial court, being the ultimate arbiter,” it further stated.
The review petition requested the court to recall the judgement over the matter and allow the appeal.
