The Supreme Court Registrar has rejected a petition filed by senior leader of the Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP) Awn Chaudhry, seeking dissolution of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
The petition was declared as “not entertainable”.
Awn Chaudhry’s petition alleged that the PTI chairman was responsible for orchestrating attacks on state institutions, including the judiciary, the military, and its installations.
The petitioner further claimed that the PTI chairman and the party had violated fundamental human rights and breached the provisions of the Constitution.
The petition named the PTI chairman and the party president as respondents. Additionally, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, and the ministries of law and interior were also included as respondents in the case.
However, the Supreme Court Registrar deemed the petition as not falling within the court’s jurisdiction and therefore rejected it.
“The acts of PTI, its Chairman, office-bearers, their hate speeches attacking the judiciary, defence, burning and looting public assets, etc are totally unconstitutional…,” stated the petition.
It alleged that the PTI hatched a conspiracy against the state institutions, burning the Corps Commander’s house, and looting state properties all over the country on May 9.
In the petition, Awn Chaudhry also asserted that the PTI chief and his party had significantly undermined the social fabric by launching attacks on institutions and delivering hate speeches that compromised the integrity and dignity of the country and its institutions.
The Registrar has stated that “the petitioner had not pointed out as to what questions of public importance in the instant case are involved with reference to the Constitution, so as to directly invoke jurisdiction of the SC under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution”.
It further maintained that the necessary requirements for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction had “not been satisfied” and that it was unclear “for what purpose this Constitution petition is being filed before this court.”
The registrar’s office also stated that the petitioner “has not approached any other appropriate forum available under the law for the same relied and has also not provided any justification for not doing so”.
