LAHORE: A Lahore High Court (LHC) judge has asked the chief justice to form a larger bench to decide two identical petitions concerning PTI chief Imran Khan’s disqualification by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

One petition seeks Mr Khan’s removal as the PTI head after his disqualification in the Toshakhana reference, whereas the other challenges the law invoked by the ECP to disqualify Mr Khan.

Justice Sajid Mahmood Sethi on Friday observed that important legal points had been raised in the petitions, which needed to be decided by a larger bench.

The judge sent the petitions to the LHC chief justice with a request to form a larger bench — one with at least five judges. He has already issued notices on both petitions.

In the first petition against the PTI chairman, Advocate Muham­mad Afaq, the petitioner in person, said the ECP disqualified the former prime minister and de-seated him from Mianwali’s NA-95 constituency on charges of corrupt practices.

Therefore, as per the Representa­tion of Peoples Act 1976 and the Poli­tical Parties Order 2002, the office-bearers of a political party must meet the standards provided in articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.

He argued that Mr Khan was violating the laws by continuing to head the PTI, a party registered with the ECP, and that a person disqualified under Article 63 was not entitled to become or stay as office-bearer of a political party.

The petitioner asked the court to order the ECP to remove Mr Khan as the PTI’s chairman and direct the party to nominate a new head.

In the second petition against Mr Khan’s disqualification, Jabir Abbas Khan, a voter from the NA-95 constituency, challenged the legitimacy of Section 137(4) of the Election Act 2017 invoked by the ECP to de-seat Imran Khan from the constituency in the Toshakhana reference.

The petitioner, through Advocate Azhar Siddique, argued that the PTI chairman had been disqualified under sections 137(4) (power to prosecute for corrupt practice), 167 (corrupt practice) and 173 (making false statement or declaration) of the Election Act despite the fact that these sections did not mention the word “disqualification”.

He said that not sharing details of Toshakhana gifts and proceeds from the sale did not lead to disqualification.

Besides, he argued that under Section 137 of the act, the prosecution could only be initiated within 120 days of the filing of false asset statements. In Mr Khan’s case, the last such statement was filed on Dec 31 last year, meaning the prosecution must have been initiated by April 30, which is not the case.

The petitioner said the ECP “illegally and unlawfully” disqualified Mr Khan under Article 63(1p) of the Constitution along with sections 137 and 173 of the Election Act, because Section 137 specified only a three-year punishment or fine or both, and not a disqualification.

He asked the court to declare Section 137(4) of the Election Act ultra vires (beyond the powers) — actions taken by government bodies that exceed the scope of power given to them by laws — to the Constitution and restrain the ECP from taking any action or proceedings in the matter until the petition is being heard.

Published in Dawn, November 12th, 2022