The Supreme Court registrar’s office has returned a petition filed by Istihkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP) Additional Secretary General Aun Chaudhry, seeking a ban on the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. The registrar’s office raised several objections, stating that the requirements of Article 184(3) of the Constitution were not fulfilled, and the plea did not demonstrate how the ban on PTI relates to the public interest. Furthermore, it was noted that the relevant forum was not approached prior to filing the petition. This development follows recent controversies surrounding PTI and calls for a ban on the party.
The Supreme Court registrar’s office has raised objections to a petition filed by Aun Chaudhry, the Additional Secretary General of the Istihkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP), seeking a ban on the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. The registrar’s office cited procedural concerns, highlighting that the requirements of Article 184(3) of the Constitution were not fulfilled during the filing of the petition. This development casts doubt on the feasibility of the ban and raises questions about the legal basis and public interest considerations associated with such a move.
In the petition seeking a ban on PTI, Aun Chaudhry, once a close aide of PTI Chairman Imran Khan, faced setbacks as the Supreme Court registrar’s office identified key objections. It was stated that the requirements of Article 184(3) of the Constitution were not adequately met during the filing of the petition. This raises questions about the petition’s validity and its alignment with the constitutional provisions regarding the imposition of a ban on a political party.
The registrar’s office also emphasized that Aun Chaudhry’s plea did not sufficiently demonstrate how the ban on the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party relates to a matter of public interest. The absence of a clear explanation regarding the public interest implications of the proposed ban raises doubts about the petition’s merit. It highlights the importance of ensuring that any legal actions taken against a political party are justified and in the best interest of the public.
Another concern raised by the Supreme Court registrar’s office was that Aun Chaudhry, the leader of the Istihkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP) and adviser to the prime minister on sports and tourism, did not approach the relevant forum prior to filing the petition seeking a ban on PTI. This failure to engage with the appropriate channels for resolution before resorting to legal action may impact the petition’s legitimacy and adherence to due process.
Imran Khan, the former prime minister and Chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, recently accused the government of attempting to “impose a ban” on his party in the country. In an interview with CNN, Khan expressed concerns about efforts to dismantle the democratic system and hinder his political involvement. These remarks shed light on the heightened tensions surrounding PTI and the potential consequences of any attempts to ban the party.
Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah stated in May that there seemed to be no alternative but to impose a ban on the PTI following violent protests that erupted after the arrest of Imran Khan. The protests resulted in casualties and attacks on civil and military installations. The suggestion of a ban from a senior government official further fueled the controversy surrounding PTI and intensified the debate about the party’s future.
Read More: 42 Blind Men, women successfully perform Hajj this year
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party faced significant turmoil as violent protests erupted following the arrest of Imran Khan. The protests led to casualties and targeted civil and military installations, including the Corps Commander’s House and the General Headquarters. The military designated the day of the protests as a “Black Day” and decided to try the protesters under the Army Act. The situation further escalated when ruling party Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Senior Vice President Maryam Nawaz called for PTI to be treated as a terrorist organization.
The Supreme Court registrar’s office has returned a petition seeking a ban on the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, citing procedural objections. The filing did not fulfil the requirements of Article 184(3) of the Constitution and failed to demonstrate how the ban relates to a matter of public interest. Moreover, the petitioner did not approach the relevant forum prior to filing the plea. These developments add to the controversies surrounding PTI, including accusations of attempts to impose a ban, violent protests, and calls for treating the party as a terrorist organization.
