LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Monday reserved verdict on two petitions seeking a direction to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to appoint additional election tribunals in Punjab.

PTI-backed independent candidates advocate Salman Akram Raja and Rao Omar Hashim Khan, who had lost their general election from NA-128 and NA-139, respectively, filed the petitions.

The petitions contended that the ECP notified five election tribunals each for Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, three for Balochistan, and one for Islamabad pursuant to nominations sent by the chief justices of the respective high courts.

However, in Punjab, the ECP made a request to the LHC chief justice to nominate nine judges for appointment as election tribunals, the petitioner said. It said initially, two of the judges nominated by the LHC were appointed as tribunals.

The petitions asked the court to order the ECP to appoint additional election tribunals in light of the recommendations of the LHC for expeditious disposal of the petitions regarding the general election.

After hearing arguments from all parties, Justice Shahid Karim reserved the verdict.

Fawad plea: A LHC two-judge bench reserved verdict on a petition of former minister Fawad Chaudhry seeking permission to attend trial proceedings of criminal cases against him through video link.

Previously, a single bench comprising Chief Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan had heard the petition. Later, the chief justice transferred the petition to a division bench comprising Justice Farooq Haider and Justice Shakil Ahmad.

After a government’s lawyer and the petitioner’s counsel concluded their arguments, the division bench reserved its verdict. The counsel argued that dozens of cases were registered against the petitioner in different cities of Punjab. He said it was not humanly possible for the petitioner to physically attend the trial proceedings of each case. He said the petitioner should be allowed to attend the hearings on video link.

Opposing the petition, an additional advocate general argued that the superior courts could not intervene in the matter of the trial courts. He said only the trial court could decide whether to permit attendance of an accused through video link.—Staff Reporter