PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has ruled that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Sohail Afridi has failed to establish that Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) lacks jurisdiction to inquire into (his) alleged election misconduct.

A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Mohammad Faheem Wali ruled: “The assertion that ECP lacks jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner (chief minister) is unpersuasive.”

The bench released an eight-page detailed order, a day after it rejected Mr Afridi’s petition challenging proceedings initiated against him by ECP for allegedly violating the election code of conduct during by-elections in Haripur in Nov 2025.

The bench observed that the impugned notices were previously challenged before this Court in a writ petition, which was dismissed through a judgment on Nov 26, 2025.

PHC releases detailed order on Afridi’s petition challenging ECP proceedings against him

“Although this court at this stage refrains from expressing a definitive opinion on jurisdiction to allow ECP to consider the matter, the petitioner has failed in the present proceedings to establish any patent lack of jurisdiction or legal infirmity warranting extraordinary constitutional interference,” the bench declared.

“It is also significant that at the time of filing the instant petition, no adverse final order had been passed against the petitioner. ECP, as a constitutional body, exercises powers conferred upon it by the Constitution and the law,” the bench observed.

It referred to an earlier judgement of the Supreme Court wherein it was mentioned that the general powers and duties of ECP under Article 218(3) of the Constitution read with Section 8(c) of Elections Act, 2017 were meant to ensure that elections were conducted honestly, justly, fairly and strictly in accordance with law.

“Regarding the submission that ECP should have decided the preliminary question of jurisdiction prior to entering upon the merits, suffice it to observe that ECP, being a specialised constitutional forum, is competent to regulate its own proceedings,” the bench observed. It added that ECP may, in its wisdom, decide jurisdictional objections alongside the main matter.

“Such procedural regulation by ECP does not, per se, suffer from jurisdictional defect amenable to writ jurisdiction,” the court ruled.

The bench discussed in detail the petitioner’s contention that once district monitoring officer (DMO) had taken cognisance under Section 234 of Elections Act, 2017, ECP was divested of jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices or proceed against the petitioner.

“In our considered view, this contention is wholly misconceived,” the bench pointed out.

After discussing the powers of DMO and ECP under Elections Act, 2017, the bench ruled: “It is, therefore, evident that proceedings initiated by DMO under Section 234 of the Act, regarding an alleged breach of code of conduct, and proceedings before ECP to inquire into serious allegations of corrupt practice under Section 170, operate in distinct and independent legal fields.”

“The initiation of summary proceedings by DMO under Chapter XV does not oust or curtail the statutory and constitutional jurisdiction vested in ECP under Chapter X of the Act and Article 218(3) of the Constitution,” it said.

The bench ruled: “Consequently, the contention that the initiation of proceedings by DMO deprived ECP of jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged misconduct is devoid of substance. Both proceedings stem from distinct statutory provisions and serve different legal objectives.”

“The mere fact that the same set of facts or conduct may attract consequences under more than one statutory provision does not render ECP’s proceedings without jurisdiction,” it observed.

“Offences under Chapter X are serious statutory violations triable by a court of session upon a complaint filed by the commission or an aggrieved person,” the court observed.

In Nov last year, the chief minister and by-election candidate Shehrnaz Omar Ayub, backed by PTI, had challenged notices issued to them by ECP for allegedly violating the election code of conduct.

Mr Afridi had challenged a notice issued to him by ECP on Nov 20, accusing him of delivering a provocative speech against government functionaries in connection with the by-election in NA-18 Haripur. ECP contended that his speech was contrary to the code of conduct issued by the commission for the by-election.

The court had dismissed both those petitions, observing that no adverse order had so far been passed against the petitioners.

Mr Afridi again approached the court earlier this year, contending that ECP had been proceeding against him without first deciding the question of its jurisdiction, contrary to the Elections Act, 2017.

Published in Dawn, October 9th, 2026