SC admits Imran's petition for vote verification in four constituencies
10 December, 2013
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has admitted Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's petition for preliminary hearing regarding the verification of thumb impressions in four constituencies.
After six months of filing the case, Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, heading the three-member bench on Monday, ordered its registrar office to fix PTI Chairman Imran Khan's civil miscellaneous petition in the Workers Party Pakistan case within seven days for regular hearing. Senior lawyers believe that if the Supreme Court issues an order on the petition there would be profound repercussions on Pakistani politics.
The counsel for PTI, Hamid Khan requested the court to check, as the first step, the fairness, genuineness and honesty of May 2013 general elections and order verification of thumb impressions in four constituencies – NA-110, NA-122, NA-125 and NA-154.
"This would clearly show how many bogus votes had been cast in these constituencies and whether results of elections in these constituencies have been tampered with by stuffing of votes, casting of bogus ballots, absence of thumb impressions or affixation of false thumb impressions, etc," he stated.
On June 8 the PTI had filed a miscellaneous application in the Workers Party Pakistan case against the alleged rigging in the May 11 elections. The SC registrar office had returned that application, telling the party to approach another forum.
Now, Hamid Khan has filed an appeal against the registrar office. It is worth mentioning that while submitting a written reply in contempt of case against him on August 27 Imran Khan expressed disappointment over the superior judiciary (National Judicial Policy Making Committee) for "condoning the acts of district returning officers (DROs) and returning officers (ROs) and giving them a clean chit during the meeting of all high courts and the Supreme Court's chief justices on June 8".
Submitting a comprehensive explanation, Imran Khan had contended that the word sharamnaak (shameful) used by him was never meant to be an abuse to anyone, not even for the DROs and the ROs, and added that it was rather used in the sense or context of unbecoming and that "it is humbly submitted that it may kindly be construed so".
"Since the conduct of these judicial officers – appointed as DROs and ROs – is now directly an issue in the proceeding before the election tribunals and other courts, it may be in the interest of justice that no view may kindly be expressed by the Supreme Court in respect of them," he further requested.