Annoyed by Supreme Court’s verdict, PTI takes back its petition from the court: Level playing in elections

ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has decided to retract its petition from the Supreme Court, which sought a fair electoral playing field for the upcoming general elections.

During the hearing of PTI’s appeal in the Supreme Court on Monday, lawyer Latif Khosa, representing the party, expressed the decision to turn to the court of public opinion for the preservation of democracy.

The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and including Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali, presided over the case.

Khosa emphasized the party’s preference to seek justice from the court of the 250 million people, stating, “We came to you seeking a level playing field for fair and transparent elections, but the judgment deprived us of 230 seats. People were assigned symbols like glass, eggplant, bowl, etc.”

Expressing the party’s dissatisfaction, Khosa remarked, “We have been humiliated.”

In response to the decision to withdraw the petition, CJP Isa asked whether the PTI wanted to pursue the case. Khosa explained that he had been instructed to withdraw the application and expressed discontent with the court’s decision.

CJP Isa asserted that accepting or rejecting the court’s decision was the PTI’s choice and clarified that the judges should not be blamed for the verdict.

Khosa conveyed to the CJP that the court had taken away the field from the PTI, causing insult to the party. He stated, “A party is being banned by evicting it from parliament,” and added that all PTI candidates would now contest elections as independent candidates, leading to confusion.

Responding to Khosa’s concerns about the transparency of the elections, Justice Hilali inquired whether he believed the elections would not be fair.

Khosa insisted that the elections were entirely unfair and expressed the party’s sacrifice for the judiciary.

CJP Isa urged Khosa not to blame the judges for the Supreme Court’s decision, emphasizing the need to focus on the present case without bringing up other matters.