ISLAMABAD - The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Friday turned down Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Senator Faisal Vawda’s petition filed against the proceedings seeking his disqualification in the Election Commission of Pakistan. 
A single bench of IHC comprising Chief Justice of IHC Justice Athar Minallah rejected the petition of Senator Faisal Vawda who invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. 
This high court verdict has serious repercussions for Vawda and it is likely that it would increase problems for him. In this regard, these two paragraphs of IHC verdict are very important: “The probe regarding the affidavit submitted by the petitioner is definitely pursuant to the aforementioned direction of the august Supreme Court. It is not a simple case of disqualification under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution.” 
“In case the probe leads to a conclusion that the affidavit and contents thereof were false, then grave consequences would follow. Neither the Commission nor this Court has the power or jurisdiction to interfere with the unambiguous directions given by the august Supreme Court vide the aforementioned order. The power of the Commission to probe the falsity of the affidavit is conferred pursuant to the direction of the august Supreme Court,” said Justice Athar.
In his petition, the Senator challenged an interim order, dated 12-10-2021, passed by the Election Commission of Pakistan which had dismissed the application of the petitioner whereby he had prayed for dismissal/rejection of proceedings pending against him.
The IHC bench mentioned in its verdict that the august Supreme Court had directed as follows: “All candidates of the national and provincial assemblies shall file the said affidavit along with their nomination papers. Such candidates who have already filed their nomination papers, shall file the said affidavit with the returning officers by or before 11th June, 2018. The Secretary, ECP, has assured us that the aforesaid process will not in any manner upset the schedule of Elections so as to delay of holding of the General Elections on 25-7-2018, as already announced.
It further said, “It is clarified that failure to file such affidavit before the returning officer would render the nomination papers incomplete and liable to rejection. If the affidavit or any part thereof is found false then it shall have consequences, as contemplated by the Constitution and the law. Since the affidavit is required to be filed in pursuance of the orders of this Court, therefore, if any false statement is made therein, it would also entail such penalty as is of filing a false affidavit before this Court.”
The IHC bench observed that the petitioner was amongst the elected representatives who had been declared as a returned candidate. He, therefore, in compliance with the direction of the apex court, had submitted his affidavit.
It noted that the power and jurisdiction of the Commission to conduct a probe regarding the contents/declaration made by a candidate in his/her affidavit arises out of the aforementioned direction of the august Supreme Court read with Articles 218 and 219 of the Constitution.
The IHC Chief Justice said that in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that the Commission is bereft of jurisdiction under the Election Act, 2017, is misconceived. He maintained, “It is, therefore, declared that completion of the probe regarding falsity or otherwise of the affidavit submitted by the Petitioner is mandatory in the light of the direction given by the august Supreme Court. It can neither be avoided nor delayed by the Petitioner or the Commission. The Commission is, therefore, directed to complete the probe expeditiously and with due diligence, preferably within sixty days from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.” 
He concluded that this Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The petition in hand is disposed-of with the expectation that the Commission will conclude its proceedings within the specified period and that no delay would be caused by or on behalf of the petitioner.