ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday regretted a sudden increase in votes polled by Agriculture Minister Mir Ali Madad Jattak from 195 to 5,107 during the February 8 general elections for the PB-45 (Quetta) seat of the Balochistan Assembly through fraud, misrepresentation and manipulation. registration including Form-45.
On the other hand, 1,623 votes polled by JUI-F candidate Mir Muhammad Usman Pirkani (respondent) remained the same, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi observed in a detailed explanation of why the court had rejected Mr. Jattak on November 20, 2024.
Justice Abbasi was a member of the three-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Shahid Waheed, that had taken up the appeal against the Balochistan Election Tribunal, which on September 16, 2024, had annulled Mr. Jattak’s victory with the order to carry out a new review. voting in 15 disputed polling stations in the electoral district.
“In reaching… such a conclusion, the electoral tribunal has endeavored to scrutinize all the electoral material and the record, the relevant forms and even took note of the overwriting and cutting done in Form-45 and subsequently the scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the Form-45 submitted by the returned candidate (appellant) is a product of fraud and misrepresentation by which not only the appellant Ali Madad Jattak but also the RO of the said constituency is equally responsible,” explains the 25-page ruling.
“RO did not assign any valid reason or legal justification to change the date of consolidation of the result from February 13 to February 9, 2024, being prior to the same without notifying all the competing candidates or even the service of the alleged corrigendum on February 9, 2024. to the interested parties could be established from the record,” Justice Abbasi observed.
This fact alone is enough not only to create serious doubts about the so-called consolidation carried out by the RO on February 9, 2024 in the absence of all competing candidates or their representatives, but also reflects the credibility of the ECP and the RO of the constituency in question, in particular these 15 electoral colleges.
“In view of the factual and legal situation that has arisen in the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit, while the counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or procedural defect that may require the interference of the Supreme Court in the court’s decision,” the ruling says.
Published in Amanecer, January 2, 2025.
