{"id":32514,"date":"2023-12-07T12:20:07","date_gmt":"2023-12-07T12:20:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.pakistaninewspaperlist.com\/lhc-seeks-responses-on-ptis-plea-the-express-tribune\/"},"modified":"2023-12-07T12:20:07","modified_gmt":"2023-12-07T12:20:07","slug":"lhc-seeks-responses-on-ptis-plea-the-express-tribune","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pakistaninewspaperlist.com\/news\/lhc-seeks-responses-on-ptis-plea-the-express-tribune\/","title":{"rendered":"LHC seeks responses on PTI`s plea | The Express Tribune"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\nLAHORE:
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday directed authorities to submit responses by December 12 on a plea by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) challenging the appointment procedure of\u00a0Punjab’s bureaucrats for election duty.\u00a0<\/p>\n

PTI’s additional secretary general, Umair Khan Niazi, urged the court to declare sections 50(1)(b) and 51(1) of the Elections Act 2017 illegal and unconstitutional, questioning the fairness of the upcoming general elections.<\/p>\n

During the proceedings today, Niazi’s counsel specified that the case focuses\u00a0on the appointments of officials in Punjab. He argued that these appointments are unconstitutional, emphasising the officials’ increased empowerment, exemplified by over 100 detention orders issued against PTI leaders and workers in the last six months.<\/p>\n

Responding to Justice Ali Baqar Najafi’s query on the unconstitutional aspect, the counsel highlighted the misuse of power through frequent detentions and arrests without fresh FIRs. The petitioner requested the court to instruct the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to consult with the LHC’s chief justice for appointing judicial officers as district returning officers and returning officers for the 2024 general elections.<\/p>\n

Read:<\/strong> PTI challenges appointment of election officials in LHC<\/a><\/p>\n

The plea seeks to prevent the ECP from appointing these officers from executive authorities of the government during the plea’s pendency.<\/p>\n

The petitioner contended that PTI has faced discrimination by caretaker governments, disrupting the bureaucratic system through excessive transfer postings, contrary to the Elections Act 2017. He argued that appointing executive officials as DROs and ROs infringes on the ECP’s independent role, violating the constitutional mandate for free and fair elections.<\/p>\n

Challenging Section 50(1)(b) of the Elections Act 2017, the petitioner asserted that\u00a0it restricts ECP’s selection pool and grants the government undue influence in appointments.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n