Sadaf Ihsan’s writ: PHC seeks original record from ECP as JUIF chief submits reply

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Thursday sought original record from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in Sadaf Ihsan’s writ petition and adjourned the hearing till April 2.

Also, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUIF) chief Maulana Fazlur Rahman submitted a reply to whom the court had issued notice during the previous hearing.

A division bench of the PHC comprising Justice SM Attique Shah and Justice Shakeel Ahmad heard the petition. Lawyers Ishaq Shah and Farhan Tariq resented the petitioner while Naveed Akhtar and Mohsin Kamran Siddique appeared for the JUIF and ECP, respectively.

JUIF counsel informed the court that names in the first priority list given to the ECP were incorrect, which were then corrected and submitted to the commission accordingly.

Upon this, Justice SM Attique Shah asked where was the ECP list and which names it contained and what was the last date for submission of priority list. He also asked that let the court understand which names possessed the Form 66.

With an extension of two days, Naveed Akhtar pleaded that December 24 was the last date for submission of priority list.

The ECP lawyer told the bench that Hina Bibi name was at the end of priority list and said that January 13 priority list also contained the name of Sadaf Ihsan.

However, the lawyer for JUIFcontested it and said that Hina Bibi’s name was included in the list on the Supreme Court’s directives.

The JUIF lawyer replied in affirmative when the court asked whether Sadaf Yasmeen or Sadaf Ihsan was a party in the SC. He argued that Sadfa Ihsan had no affiliation with the JUIF and the party had never sent her name in the priority list.

He maintained that she was not a party member and if it was so, she would have taken back her name after the JUIF chief Maulana Fazlur Rahman’s letter to the ECP, and she would have not revolted.

To this, Justice SM Attique Shah said that Maulana Shirani and Maulana Gul Naseeb had also revolted and now everyone in the party can follow suit.

However, the petitioner’s lawyers contested the arguments of JUIF counsel and said that why the party did not object to the election of Sadaf Ihsan and the subsequent notification by the ECP.

Counsels for the petitioner told the court that his client had been elected to the National Assembly on the JUIF reserved seat and the ECP had notified her election as well on March 4 last.

They said the ECP later stopped Sadaf Ihsan from taking oath after a complaint was lodged by Hina Bibi that the former had neither any affiliation with the JUIF nor her name was in the list of party candidates for reserved seats.

They argued that the ECP then conducted an inquiry and subsequently suspended Sadaf Ihsan’s NA membership.

The lawyers said the ECP had violated its jurisdiction by suspending the NA membership of his client, saying it was the job of election tribunals already in place to hear such petitions.

Justice Shakeel Ahmad said that the ECP had no authority to denotify a lawmaker after notification of election tribunals.

It may be mentioned that the PHC had once announced a verdict in the open court in the instant case but later declared that justice cannot be dispensed without hearing the viewpoint of the JUIF chief.

The court had observed that certain important points emerged and the bench reached a conclusion that the verdict would not meet criteria of justice without presenting a stance by the JUIF chief in this writ petition.