Aaj Logo

Updated 10 Mar, 2022 01:38pm

SC issues notice to PM Imran on Ayaz Sadiq's plea

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to Prime Minister Imran Khan, the Election Commission of Pakistan and the National Database and Registration Authority on the petition of former National Assembly speaker Ayaz Sadiq against his de-seating by a tribunal.

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and including Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Ayesha A Malik heard the case related to rigging allegation against Sadiq in the NA-122 constituency wherein the PML-N leader won the elections in 2013.

An election tribunal had de-seated the former NA speaker in 2015 on the petition of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chairperson who challenged Sadiq's victory in the May 2013 general elections.

The tribunal had declared Sadiq's victory null and void from the NA-122 Lahore constituency, where he had defeated the prime minister.

Following the ex-NA speaker's de-seating, Sadiq challenged the decision in the apex court and also contested by-elections in the same constituency. The PML-N leader defeated PTI's Aleem Khan and later was re-elected as the NA speaker.

At the onset of Thursday's hearing, Sadiq's lawyer Advocate Ayesha Hamid noted that the rigging allegations were imposed on her client for his character assassination and that through the accusations Sadiq was labelled a liar.

At this, the CJP inquired whether the PML-N leader won the elections after the allegations of rigging. Advocate Hamid clarified that despite the accusations, her client won the polls.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that character assassination comes under defamation laws which are very clear and that Sadiq should file a case under the law.

In his remarks, Justice Bandial added the duration of 2013 elections had been completed and with that the issue had also been resolved.

At this, Sadiq's lawyer responded that it was a political matter.

However, the CJP remarked that the legal proceedings would never be allowed to go to waste and that the court had issued notices to the respondents and would listen to the matter soon.

Later, the court adjourned hearing of the case indefinitely.

Read Comments