Daily Times

The Supreme Court on Monday returned the Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP) senior leader Awn Chaudhry’s petition seeking the dissolution of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), deeming it “not entertainable”, a private TV channel reported.

The petitioner, Awn Chaudhry, had contended that the PTI chairman was involved in attacks on state institutions, the judiciary, the military, and its installations, and violated basic human rights and the Constitution.

The petition had made the PTI chairman and the party president respondents. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, and the ministries of law and interior and others are also made respondents in the case.

“The acts of PTI, its Chairman, office-bearers, their hate speeches attacking the judiciary, defence, burning and looting public assets, etc are totally unconstitutional…,” stated the petition. It also mentioned the events of May 9, saying that PTI supporters hatched a conspiracy against the state institutions, burning the Corps Commander’s house, and looting state properties all over the country.

The petitioner had added that the PTI chief and his party destroyed the fabric of the society by attacking the institutions and making hate speeches against the integrity and dignity of the country and its institutions. However, the SC has rejected the application listing down sic different objections. The Registrar has stated that “the petitioner had not pointed out as to what questions of public importance in the instant case are involved with reference to the Constitution, so as to directly invoke jurisdiction of the SC under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution”. It further maintained that the necessary requirements for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction had “not been satisfied” and that it was unclear “for what purpose this Constitution petition is being filed before this court.” The registrar’s office also stated that the petitioner “has not approached any other appropriate forum available under the law for the same relied and has also not provided any justification for not doing so”.