Islamabad, 7 August 2024(TDI): The newly adopted Election Act Amendment Bill in the National Assembly is being challenged by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in a plea submitted to the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday, asking for its cancellation.
Through Attorney Salman Akram Raja, PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan filed a petition under Article 184(3) with the Supreme Court, citing the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the federal government as respondents.
In the petition, it is claimed that the bill is “unconstitutional and illegal,” and that it was adopted by a majority vote yesterday in spite of fierce opposition party protests.
In addition, PTI has petitioned the Supreme Court to stop the election monitor from giving reserved seats to any other political party right now.
The appeal said, “Lists for the reserved seats have already been submitted to the Election Commission by the PTI.”
In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on July 12, the party requests that PTI be given the reserved seats for women and non-Muslims.
Also read: Pakistan in Touch with US After Citizen Charged with Assassination Plot
The ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif suffered a serious setback when the opposition PTI was granted reserved seats for women and non-Muslims in the high court’s July 12 order, which was handed down by a 13-judge full bench.
Gohar criticized the law yesterday in a statement made on the National Assembly (NA) floor, claiming that it goes against democratic norms.
Although this parliament is paramount, the paramount Court has the final say over interpretation, according to Gohar.
His words emphasized the PTI’s determination to oppose what he called a “politically motivated” bill.
The ECP declared on July 19 that it will carry out the SC’s order, allowing the MNAs supported by the PTI to participate in assembly proceedings under the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) banner as opposed to the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC).
The election monitor reaffirmed in a press release that it will follow the court’s order, but that its legal counsel should quickly ascertain any barriers to implementation.
