AJK Election Commission rejects two pleas against Rathore’s LA-17 victory

MUZAFFARABAD: The Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Election Commission on Saturday, by a 2-1 majority, rejected two petitions challenging the victory of the region’s Prime Minister, Raja Faisal Mumtaz Rathore, in LA-17 (Haveli).

Chief Election Commissioner Justice (retd) Ghulam Mustafa Mughal and Senior Member Muhammad Ahsen dismissed the petitions filed separately by PML-N candidate Chaudhry Mohsin Aziz and independent candidate Khawaja Tariq Saeed, stating that the disputes involved factual questions that could appropriately be resolved through an election petition before an Election Tribunal.

Member Syed Nazeerul Hassan Gillani, however, dissented in both cases and directed the returning officer (RO) to recompile the results of the disputed polling stations based on Forms-24 prepared by presiding officers (POs) and supplied to polling agents at the polling stations.

The majority view prevailed, and Rathore’s election notification remained intact. Under the applicable law, the majority decision prevails in the event of a difference of opinion among commission members.

On Friday night, the commission issued the formal notification declaring Rathore the returned candidate from LA-17 and Sajid Iqbal Abbasi from LA-14.

The PML-N’s Aziz alleged that there were discrepancies between the results prepared by the RO and Forms-24 supplied to his polling agents at 21 polling stations.

He added that 1,133 votes had been allegedly deducted from his tally while 3,095 votes were added to Rathore’s tally through forged and fabricated statements of count.

He further alleged that polling had not been conducted at stations 168 and 173 and sought, among other reliefs, a re-compilation of results according to the original Forms-24 and recounting of votes.

The RO rejected the allegations, saying polling had continued without interruption from 8am to 5pm on August 10 and that no candidate had lodged any complaint against POs during polling.

He added that the POs brought sealed polling bags and Forms-24 to his office under the security of military personnel and duty magistrates, and that the forms were signed, stamped and untampered.

The results, he stated, were read out to and shown to polling agents and journalists before being consolidated in their presence.

The majority maintained that Section 66(5) of the Elections Act allowed a recount only where the count by a PO had been challenged in writing and the RO was satisfied about the reasonableness of the challenge, or where the commission directed a recount.

It noted that no objection had been raised by Aziz’s polling agents when the results were read out and consolidated, and that no contradictory Form-24 had been presented at the time. It also rejected a self-prepared chart produced by the applicant as inadmissible.

The majority further ruled that the allegations did not fall within the scope of Section 9 of the Elections Act (power of the Commission to declare a poll void) and that the disputed matters could be determined through a regular election petition under Section 81 after recording evidence.

It also noted that the returned candidate’s notification had already been issued and that the proper course for Aziz was to avail himself of the alternate remedy provided by law.

Gillani, however, took a markedly different view.

In his dissent on Aziz’s petition, he said the PML-N candidate’s counsel had produced before the commission original Forms-24 supplied to his polling agents at 10 polling stations — Nos 46, 55, 56, 60, 114, 115, 123, 130, 153 and 157 — along with their photocopies.

Gillani said he personally examined the POs’ signatures on the Forms-24 supplied to the polling agents and compared them with those submitted to the RO. He concluded that the petitioner’s allegation of forgery was “substantiated by the record”.

According to his note, the Forms-24 submitted to the RO appeared to have been written by the same person and “in haste”, while results for only three of the four candidates in the constituency had been changed.

He consequently allowed Aziz’s application and directed the RO to re-compile the results of the 10 identified polling stations, as well as any other polling stations where a clear contradiction existed between the Forms-24 supplied to polling agents and those available with the RO.

The second petition, filed by independent candidate Khawaja Tariq Saeed, raised substantially similar allegations.

He alleged that at several polling stations his votes had been reduced while Rathore’s had been increased and expressed apprehension that new, fraudulent Forms-24 could have been placed inside polling bags to validate the disputed results.

Saeed further alleged that PPP workers had attacked his polling agent at Mandhar village, injuring four people associated with him, and sought the recounting of the polling bags before notification of the result.

The RO again maintained that no complaint had been made during polling, that all POs had submitted sealed bags and the original Forms-24 under security, and that no polling agent had objected when the results were consolidated.

He said objections emerged only the following day after the results had been displayed.

The majority held that the dispute over alleged alteration of results was essentially factual and could not be resolved without recording evidence, summoning relevant records and examining POs. It said comparison of the two sets of results could be undertaken through cross-examination in proceedings before the Election Tribunal.

It accordingly dismissed Saeed’s application, reiterating that the commission’s jurisdiction under Section 9 was limited to grave illegalities or violations materially affecting polling and that the appropriate forum for the disputed factual questions was the Election Tribunal.

Gillani again dissented.

He said Saeed had produced “sufficient proof” to establish that the results supplied to his polling agents at various polling stations on Forms-24 by the POs were different from those submitted to the RO.

Gillani also noted that the discrepancies resulted from the preparation of a “fake Form 24” to benefit a particular candidate, whom he identified as the sitting AJK prime minister.

He added that Article 50 of the AJK Interim Constitution and Sections 4, 8, 9 and 66 of the Elections Act vested the commission with broad powers to ensure free, fair and transparent elections.

He consequently directed the RO to prepare the election results of all disputed polling stations according to the original Forms-24 prepared by the POs and received on the spot by polling agents.

The majority, however, maintained that once the result had been prepared and Form-27 issued, the disputed factual questions fell within the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal.

The majority decisions relied on the AJK Supreme Court’s judgment in Gul Pathan vs Election Commission and others (2023 SCR 1), which held that the commission’s powers under Section 9 concerned grave illegalities or violations materially affecting polling and that, after publication of the returned candidate’s name, an aggrieved person’s remedy lay through an election petition under Section 81.

Both petitions were consequently dismissed as untenable.