ISLAMABAD: In Islamabad, a judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued a stern rebuke to the caretaker government on Friday, criticizing what it termed as a “dreadful system” prevailing in the country and casting doubt on its impartiality.
Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb expressed concerns over the caretaker setup, highlighting that it obstructed even the consultation process for the upcoming February 8 elections, raising suspicions about the government’s commitment to conducting fair polls.
“Is the caretaker government attempting to disrupt the elections?” questioned the judge, probing the government’s intentions.
This inquiry arose during the hearing of a plea filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Barrister Gauhar Khan and other lawyers, seeking permission to meet the party’s founder, Imran Khan, in jail.
The legal team argued that discussing the allocation of 700 party tickets, crucial with the approaching polls, required consultation with Khan.
Responding to the plea, the judge granted permission for the lawyers to meet Khan before the forthcoming elections, resolving the petition accordingly.
The court’s order emphasized the necessity of allowing the PTI founder to meet the party’s chairman under the supervision of the Adiala jail superintendent, affirming that facilitating consultations for elections was a fundamental right of the party.
Furthermore, the court urged the caretaker government to maintain neutrality throughout the election process.
Highlighting that opposition to the PTI founder and chairman’s consultation raised doubts about the government’s impartiality, the court reiterated the importance of neutrality in this context.
During the plea’s hearing, the additional attorney general and the Adiala jail superintendent appeared in court. However, objections raised by both the attorney general and advocate general incurred the judge’s displeasure.
Justice Aurangzeb criticized the representatives, reminding them of their roles to remain impartial, expressing dismay at their objections despite prior guidance from the Supreme Court.
