Daily Times

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday sought the Interior Ministry’s reply in appeals with regard to local government elections in the federal capital.

An IHC bench comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz heard the appeals of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Federation against the decision of a single-member bench.

At the outset of the hearing, Additional Attorney General Munawar Duggal said the joint session of the parliament had approved the Islamabad Capital Territory LG (Amendment) Bill, which would be effective from February 25. The chief justice asked whether there was any guarantee that the number of union councils would not be increased again as according to the new law the Federal Government had the authority to do so, and whether there was any problem to hold elections in 125 UCs. There was no solid reason for increasing the number of UCs, he remarked.

The AAG said the Election Commission had to carry out new delimitation in the 125 UCs.

The ECP’s Director General Law said the institution could complete the process of delimitation in 60 days and after that, the election schedule could be issued. He would update the court about the new date of LG polls after taking instructions, he added.

The Advocate General Islamabad said it would be appropriate if the Interior Ministry’s opinion was also sought on the matter. The court adjourned the case till March 2, instructing the Interior Ministry to depute a responsible officer to submit its reply in the appeals.

Meanwhile, the IHC summoned the director general (Law) ECP in a case against the de-notifying of PTI’s lawmaker Shandana Gulzar.

Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb heard the case filed by PTI’s leader challenging the ECP’s notification which de-notified her from the NA seat.

At the outset of the hearing, the ECP’s lawyer informed the court that the DG couldn’t appear before the bench this day due to an important meeting in the office. Justice Miangul Hassan remarked that some disqualifications had even far-reaching effects.

Petitioner’s lawyer Barrister Gohar said that the decision taken by the ECP was not in its mandate. At this, the court remarked how it’s so as it was the responsibility of the ECP to conduct the scrutiny of the nomination papers of the candidates.

The court instructed the petitioner’s lawyer to present the references of law and courts’ verdicts related to his case. The court summoned DG (law) ECP on the next hearing and adjourned the case till February 22.