ISLAMABAD  -  The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Wednesday re­served its verdict in three separate petitions chal­lenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) notifications of successful candidates from NA-46, 47, and 48 of the National Assembly constit­uencies in the federal capital.

A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Aamer Farooq conducted hearing of petitions filed by PTI-backed candidates Shoaib Shaheen, Ali Bukhari, and Aamir Mughal seeking court’s directions to the ECP to re-consolidate the final results in light of form 45 issued by the ECP for these constituencies.

During the hearing, Justice Aamer said that if the ECP was aware of having received appeals challeng­ing the electoral results then it would have been reasonable for the commission to first decide on them.

The ECP’s lawyer adopted the stance that the commission had issued notices on the petitions, and according to Form 47, postal ballots were not included in the results, and the allegations of the petitioners are limited to Form 47.

The IHC Chief Justice remarked that the commis­sion had a pending request therefore, a decision should first have been made on it. At this, the ECP lawyer expressed the desire to provide some legal references on the court’s question.

The IHC CJ asked that what would happen to the notification if the ECP’s decision on the pend­ing request turned out to be different. The coun­sel informed the court that the commission had mentioned in its order that if the process of consol­idation [of results] had not been completed the no­tification should be stopped.

At this, Justice Aamer said that leaving that aside, the RO should have done the consolidation first. He emphasized that Shaheen filed a request in the IHC on Saturday, but due to the unavailability of a judge, the request could not be heard.

He remarked that let’s even assume that the ECP issued one notification that did not reach the RO then the notification is still your own mistake. He added that the court is not even discussing the mer­its of the case, but an appeal under consideration should be decided upon first.

The CJ said that the commission has to decide whether to accept or reject the appeals. He added that this is a legal matter that should be considered according to the law. He further said that the the court agrees on the fundamental points that an ap­peal is under consideration, but now it has to see what the solution is for it. He asked that if the com­mission accepts their appeals, the notification will be withdrawn.

The lawyer replied that to declare the notifica­tion void, it is necessary to prove before the com­mission that there was irregularity. Justice Aamer said that the ECP has pending requests and further questioned, what will happen if the ECP schedules the hearing for these requests today? If it is deter­mined tomorrow that the points raised in the peti­tions are correct, then what?

The bench further asked that if the electoral watchdog has issued a stay order, it did not reach the RO okay, fine. But how did the commission issue the notification when it had the stay order?

The ECP’s counsel said that they will still consid­er what the petitioners have filed, the merit of the argument is not affected by the fact that a final noti­fication has been issued. He said that the ECP’s de­cision can also be revoked if the petitioner’s argu­ment is proven right. Therefore, the IHC does not have to worry about the matter of the notification’s issuance.

Shaheen argued that if the whole process of re­counting has to be repeated then why was the noti­fication issued in the first place? He requested the court to declare the ECP’s notification null and void.

The IHC CJ replied that the court does not have the authority to give directions to the ECP, but he will give his observations. However, the petitioner then argued that the court could issue directions to the ECP.

The chief justice remarked that the ECP is also a constitutional body therefore, it is a general per­ception that the high court cannot give it directions.

The petitioner reiterated that the ECP’s notifica­tion should be declared void; if the consolidation process has to be repeated, then everything should be cancelled.