Former Indian SC Judge question ECP’s to disqualify PTI leader Khan.
Ex-Indian Judge Katju claims the ruling has a “fundamental fault. “Imran Khan was not previously found guilty of engaging in corrupt behavior by the election tribunal, therefore he made the point that “the judgement of the ECP is utterly faulty, misconceived, and erroneous as it is not based on any judgement of the election tribunal.”
Accordance to the ECP’s Decision
In accordance with the ECP’s decision, Imran was disqualified by the poll supervisor in accordance with Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Sections 137 (submission of a statement of assets and liabilities), 167 (corruption), and 173 (making or publishing a false statement or declaration) of the Elections Act 2017.
In the meantime, the ECP ordered that Imran be prosecuted under Elections Act of 2017 Section 190(2) (proceedings against a person for being involved in corrupt or illegal behaviour).
Corrupt practise is defined in Chapter X of the Act, according to Section 139(2) of the Act. Section 167(a) of Chapter X defines filing a false statement as a corrupt practise.
According to the Indian Lawyer
Section 140 established an election tribunal, and Section 142 mandates that election petitions be submitted within 45 days of the results being published in the official gazette.
The submission of a fraudulent statement of assets is covered by Section 173(d).
Therefore, he continued, the Pakistan Election Act outlines a detailed method for how an election result can be nullified due to a corrupt conduct (which includes filing a false declaration of assets).
EX-Indian Judge Markanday Emphasized
Judge Markanday emphasized that the electoral tribunal, not the election commission, is the only body that can carry out this task.
He went on to explain that the constitution of Pakistan, Section 63(1)(p), provides that a member may be disqualified if he is barred from office by any law.
According to Section 63(2)
The Speaker must report the issue to the Election Commission within 30 days if there is any doubt as to whether a member of Parliament is no longer eligible to serve as a member.
The election commission must make a decision about the reference within 90 days, according to section 63(3).
He pointed out that the electoral commission was undoubtedly given the authority to dismiss a National Assembly member by Section 63 of the Constitution.
However, he emphasised that a proper interpretation of the clause could only imply that the commission can act in relation to an alleged corrupt practise only after the election tribunal has rendered a decision concluding that a corrupt activity has been engaged in.
“This is the only rational interpretation. Otherwise, we will have to say that claims of corrupt activity can be decided by both the Election Tribunal and the Election Commission. What if they render contrasting judgments? This would be strange.
“The election tribunal has not found Imran Khan guilty of engaging in corrupt behavior. As a result, the election commission’s decision is entirely defective, misguided, and inappropriate because it is not based on any ruling by the electoral tribunal, he continued.
