PHC seeks replies in petitions against Senate election postponement

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has issued a written order from an earlier hearing on petitions challenging the postponement of Senate elections and has directed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and other respondents to submit their replies.

The matter was heard by a two-member bench led by Justice Syed Arshad Ali. The petitions were filed by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Speaker and Senate candidate Irfan Salim, who has challenged the suspension of the Senate polls.

According to the written order, the court has asked the ECP as well as the opposing side, including provincial assembly member Jalal Khan, to file written responses before the next hearing.

During the proceedings, petitioner’s counsel Ali Gohar Durani appeared before the court. Additional Attorney General Taimur Haider and respondents’ counsel Barrister Yasin Raza also represented their respective sides.

Arguments before the court

The petitioner’s lawyer told the court that the Election Commission had already announced an election schedule but later moved to postpone the polls. He argued that under Article 224 of the Constitution, the Commission does not have the authority to suspend elections once the process has been set in motion.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents argued that the Election Commission is a constitutional body with complete authority in such matters. He maintained that until the Commission reaches a final decision, other courts should refrain from intervening in its jurisdiction.

The written order reflects the court’s decision to seek formal responses from all relevant parties before proceeding further in the case. The petitions concern the legality of the ECP’s decision to put off the Senate elections, an issue now under judicial review before the PHC.

The case is centered on whether the Election Commission acted within its constitutional powers when it postponed the Senate polls after previously issuing the election schedule. The petitioner has challenged that move, while the respondents have defended the Commission’s authority and argued against judicial interference at this stage.

With notices issued and replies sought, the matter will now move forward after the ECP and other respondents submit their written positions to the court at the next hearing.