PTI Files Petition with Supreme Court Requesting Poll Date for KP Elections Within Nearest 90-Day Period

PTI Files Petition with Supreme Court Requesting Poll Date for KP Elections Within Nearest 90-Day Period
PTI Files Petition with Supreme Court Requesting Poll Date for KP Elections Within Nearest 90-Day Period

On Thursday, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) filed a petition with the Supreme Court, requesting the court to direct the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to hold elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) within 90 days after the dissolution of the assembly, as mandated by the Constitution. The PTI has asked the court to set aside the KP Governor’s notification to postpone the elections by five months and to direct the ECP to conduct the polls “not later than 90 days, subject to the barest minimum to that timeframe.”

The Supreme Court had previously ruled on March 1 that elections in KP and Punjab should be held within 90 days or on a date that deviates minimally from the constitutional deadline. However, following the ECP’s decision on March 22 to delay the Punjab polls till October 8, the KP Governor also proposed the same date for polls in KP.

The PTI’s plea also asks the Supreme Court to declare the KP Governor’s letter and the ECP’s notification dated March 27 contrary to the court’s directions on March 1. The petitioners include PTI Secretary General Asad Umar, KP Assembly Speaker Mushtaq Ahmad Ghani, former KP chief minister Mehmood Khan, and several provincial ministers. In contrast, the respondents include the ECP and Governor Ali.

PTI leader Faisal Javed Khan tweeted that holding elections in the entire country at once would require dissolving the National Assembly and the assemblies of Sindh and Balochistan. He asserted that since the Punjab and KP assemblies had already been dissolved, elections should be held within 90 days per the Constitution.

A video shared by PTI KP’s official Twitter account showed PTI leader Ali Muhammad Khan walking towards the Supreme Court to submit the party’s petition.

Grounds for case

The PTI’s grounds for the case are based on the argument that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has no authority to amend the Constitution and hold elections beyond 90 days. The petition argues that the ECP must refrain from overruling or reviewing the Supreme Court’s verdict. It further states that the Constitution does not recognize any illegal excuses for delaying elections, such as security concerns, financial constraints, or law and order situations.

The PTI has cited the Supreme Court’s recent order on April 4, which rejected similar reasons for delaying elections in Punjab, to argue that such reasons are not justifiable or valid. The petition also challenges the KP Governor’s and ECP’s reasons for the delay as legally flawed and disingenuous. It raises concerns that accepting such excuses would set a precedent for future elections.

The PTI has also requested the court permit additional grounds for the case, as the petition is being filed urgently.

Islamabad High Court Seeks Clarity on Security Rules for Former Prime Ministers During Hearing of Imran Khan’s Plea

During Thursday’s hearing at the Islamabad High Court (IHC), Chief Justice Aamer Farooq directed the interior ministry to submit rules for providing security to former prime ministers in a case related to PTI Chairman Imran Khan’s request for security. Imran Khan, who survived an assassination attempt on November 3, 2022, and is still recovering, has been demanding security, particularly after a statement from Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah that the PTI perceived as a death threat.

On March 7, before Sanaullah’s statement, Imran Khan had approached the Lahore High Court for “foolproof security arrangements” and permission to attend court proceedings via video link. On the same day, an Islamabad sessions court judge noted that arranging security was the court’s responsibility and had asked Imran’s counsel to inform him of any reservations.

During the IHC hearing, Barrister Salman Safdar appeared as Imran’s counsel instead of Advocate Faisal Chaudhry, who had commitments at the Supreme Court. Additional Attorney General (AAG) Munawar Iqbal Duggal and a representative from the interior ministry were also present.


During the hearing, Chief Justice Aamer Farooq of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) asked for details on the rules for providing security to former prime ministers. As Imran Khan’s counsel, Barrister Salman Safdar informed the court that Khan could not appear in person. The IHC chief justice clarified that Khan’s appearance was not required in this case.

Justice Farooq asked about the relevant rule for security. Additional Attorney General (AAG) Munawar Iqbal Duggal responded that Section 17 (security) of the Prime Minister’s Salary, Allowances and Allowances and Privileges Act, 1975 was applicable. The AAG assured that “appropriate security” would be provided and a notification would be issued in the Special Gazette as per the law.

Justice Farooq inquired if any security had been provided to Khan currently, and the AAG confirmed that one bullet-proof car had been provided. The chief justice remarked that he did not arrive in a bullet-proof car himself.

The AAG explained that after the 18th Amendment, security was a local matter, and an assessment committee made decisions. Justice Farooq asked the AAG to re-read the previously issued notification and requested a representative from the interior ministry to provide more information.

The interior ministry official informed the court that lifetime security was given, but its notification had yet to be issued. He mentioned that the federal government oversees security in Islamabad while it is reviewed locally in other provinces. He added that Imran Khan was given foolproof security in Islamabad.

Justice Farooq asked about the current situation, and the AAG replied that security was being provided in response to a writ petition in the provinces. Imran’s counsel mentioned the Wazirabad incident and the assassination of Salman Taseer and emphasized the need for security during court hearings.

Justice Farooq ordered the AAG to provide details of the relevant laws or customs related to security in the court. He remarked on the importance of following rules and protecting the rights of individuals, including former prime ministers.

During the hearing, Justice Farooq questioned the AAG about the whereabouts of the orders for foolproof security provided to Khan during recent court hearings. The AAG mentioned a general letter, but Imran’s counsel stated that a specific security plan was not in place for the hearings, citing a past observation by the IHC that the petitioner should be provided security to their satisfaction.

Justice Farooq expressed disappointment with the state’s failure to implement such minor matters without court intervention and directed the AAG to present the security rules to issue an appropriate order. He emphasized the importance of assessing security threats and providing former prime ministers with security according to their status to establish good examples.

Techno utility


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.