Top court strikes down PHC decision to suspend RO appointment in Kohat

• ECP lawyer argues single bench suspended the RO.
• CJP asks if specific RO will make an impact somehow. 
• SC directs ECP to immediately begin the scrutiny process.

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday nullified the Peshawar High Court's (PHC) decision to suspend the appointment of a returning officer in Kohat on the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) plea.

Last week, the electoral body filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the PHC order, suspending its order about the appointment of Irfanullah as a returning officer (RO) for the provincial assembly constituency of PK-91 Kohat II, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP).

The electoral body filed through its counsel Afnan Karim Kundi Advocate the leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against an order, passed by the PHC on December 27, in petitions, filed by a contestant of the constituency, raising objections on the returning officer’s appointment.

Approving the ECP appeal against the high court ruling today, Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa remarked that some tactics were ostensibly being employed to avert the elections.

CJP Isa passed these remarks while hearing the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) appeal against the suspension of PK-91 returning officer (RO) by the Peshawar High Court (PHC).

Approving the ECP’s appeal against the high court ruling, the apex court quashed the PHC order regarding suspension of an RO’s appointment by the ECP in Kohat.

The election commission had on December 28 filed an appeal in the apex court against the high court ruling, suspending the commission’s order regarding appointment of Irfanullah as a RO for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa constituency of PK-91 Kohat II.

The ECP had filed through its counsel Afnan Karim Kundi Advocate the leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against an order, passed by the PHC on Dec 27, in petitions, filed by a contestant of the constituency, raising objections on the returning officer’s appointment.

During the hearing, the ECP lawyer argued that the single bench suspended the RO on December 27 without notifying the commission.

The RO himself had sought leave on medical grounds, and the PHC did not write anything against the new RO in its order, the lawyer added.

The chief justice asked the complainant if he wanted to get an RO of his preference appointed.

One RO fell ill while another was appointed and the PHC cancelled the appointment at the stroke of a pen, he maintained.

“Should we not fine you for the cancellation of appointment without a notice? The PHC judge did not even consider issuing a notice suitable,” he said wondering what kind of orders were being passed by high courts.

The ECP lawyer said the scrutiny process was stopped after the PHC issued the order on December 27. He said nomination papers of 31 candidates were submitted. The CJP said he would issue an order to continue the scrutiny then. “Do you want to halt the elections,” he asked.

The top court ruled that the commission changed RO from PK-91 on explainable basis and the ECP did not conduct any illegal or unconstitutional measures.

Hence, the election commission should immediately begin the scrutiny process, he added.