ISLAMABAD: Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Omar Ayub Khan challenged in the Supreme Court on Wednesday the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) jurisdiction to proceed with a representation filed by his rival candidate, Babar Nawaz Khan, under Sections 8, 9, and 95 of the Elections Act, 2017.

Omar Ayub, a PTI stalwart, was elected from NA-18 Haripur in the 2024 general elections.

The petitioner argued that the ECP became functus officio (lacking jurisdiction) after the statutory 60-day period from the Feb 17, 2024 notification of the returned candidate expired on April 17, 2024. Despite this, the ECP continued proceedings, which the petitioner contended was unlawful.

The petitioner challenged the ECP’s decision to proceed with the matter before the Islamabad High Court, which disposed of the petition on April 9, 2025, directing the commission to provide an opportunity for a detailed hearing and decide the matter in accordance with the law.

Raises 32 legal questions challenging commission’s authority, IHC ruling and rights violations

In his appeal before the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised 32 questions of law, primarily challenging the ECP’s jurisdiction, the IHC decision and alleged violations of constitutional rights under Articles 2-A, 4, and 10A of the Constitution.

Omar Ayub won the election by a significant margin, securing 193,616 votes against PML-N’s Babar Nawaz Khan, who received 112,784 votes, and was notified as the returned candidate on Feb 17, 2024.

Babar Nawaz Khan had filed a representation before the ECP alleging rigging, which the commission continued to hear beyond the 60-day statutory period.

Omar Ayub contended that after the expiry of this period, the ECP lost jurisdiction, and any election dispute should instead be addressed by an election tribunal under Article 225 of the Constitution.

The petitioner also referred to the IHC’s order, which had ruled that the ECP’s decision was interlocutory (interim) and did not dispose of the case. The IHC held that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 should not interfere with interim orders unless they were patently illegal. The court further emphasised that election disputes should be resolved either by the ECP or the relevant election tribunal, not by the high court.

The PTI leader sought to set aside the IHC’s judgement and halt the ECP’s proceedings, arguing that they were unlawful and beyond its jurisdiction. The petition also asserted that the IHC had passed its order in a cursory, arbitrary, slipshod, and clandestine manner and, therefore, it deserved to be set aside.

The petition contended that the IHC, while passing the impugned judgement, had erred in law, while holding that adequate remedy under the Act/law was available to the petitioner by way of putting appearance and to contest the proceedings pending adjudication before the commission by ignoring the fact that the petitioner has a constitutional right to be dealt with.

Moreover, the petition argued that the IHC had misappreciated and misapplied the law in relation to Articles 218 and 219 of the Constitution that the high court should refrain from interfering in the election process or election disputes.

Published in Dawn, April 24th, 2025