ISLAMABAD: PTI President Parvez Elahi took his legal battle to the Supreme Court on Wednesday after the rejection of his election nomination papers by the Lahore High Court earlier this month.
Represented by Barrister Haris Azmat, Mr Elahi seeks to overturn the LHC’s Jan 13 ruling that upheld the returning officers’ (ROs) decision to reject his candidacy for the National Assembly constituency NA-64 (Gujrat III) and Punjab Assembly’s constituency PP-34 (Gujrat-VIII).
Mr Elahi, who served as the Punjab chief minister, filed his nomination for the Feb 8 general elections. However, his papers were rejected by the ROs, a decision later affirmed by both the election tribunal and the Lahore High Court.
In his appeals before the Supreme Court, Mr Elahi has contended that one of the grounds for the rejection of nomination papers was that he did not provide an exclusive bank account and gave the same account for another constituency.
He argues the legislative amendments under the Elections (Second Amendment) Act of 2023 permit candidates to use an existing bank account for multiple constituencies, a factor allegedly overlooked by the tribunal and the high court.
Both forums failed to consider Sections 132 and 133 of the Act, Mr Elahi argued, adding that it was categorically mentioned in Section 132(4) that a candidate has to provide bills, receipts, etc., of the election expenses, which can easily be verified from his bank account.
There is no bar that an existing account cannot be used for any other expenses or the said amounts cannot be reconciled.
Mr Elahi stressed that he was in jail and both the forums while deciding his plea against the rejection of the nomination papers did not consider these circumstances.
Another issue on which the petitioner was disqualified was on the ground of concealing his shareholding in the Lahore Modern Flour Mills (Private) Limited despite the fact that the flour mills was incorporated in the year 2008 but it remained non-functional, so much so that a national tax number was not even issued in its name.
About the allegation of nondisclosure of seven licensed weapons, Mr Elahi’s team argued that the nomination papers did not specifically require such disclosure under the law.
