It so transpires to my mind that certain points worthy of mention in this thread have been quite candidly overlooked.
By way of example, the question posed to the forum seeking an explanation for Nawaz's failure to initiate a probe through the auspices of the Supreme Court into the rigging allegations can be simply answered by alluding to the possibility that any such probe initiated by N, without the blessing of the PTI, would be rejected as invalid by IK and, therefore, be an exercise of absolute futility.
Furthermore let us also not forget that the appointment of a judicial commission comprising impartial judicial nominees of both the parties to investigate the allegations propagated by the Khan was the brainchild of the opposition parties and the PML-N as a resolution to the dharnas but this arrangement was outright rejected by IK and his band of wayward teenagers for the sole reason that any negotiation seeking an end to Khan's grievances would not be held under any circumstances lest Nawaz Sharif tendered his resignation.
In short, the reason no such judicial commission was appointed was largely because of Khan's own failing.
Also as
@Syed.Ali.Haider has quite correctly pointed out on numerous occasions over the course of the last 4 pages, Article 225 operates to prevent the Supreme Court from exercising powers which the Parliament has reserved for itself
or a body of its own choosing, and seeing as the Parliament is empowered by the doctrine of legislative supremacy to either vest delegated law-making authority to any institution of the State, or restrict the operational and administrative ambit of not only itself but of all institutions conceived by the Constitution of 1973 both civil, judicial and martial - the inviolability of Article 225 is sacrosanct.
Allow me to further clarify this position by iterating that the purpose of the judiciary is not to create or question the legislation, but to decide questions of disputed fact in light of that legislation and, where the legislation is ambiguous and the context so permits, to interpret that legislation into meaningful law and lay down
stare decisis.
Despite the foregoing, however, there is a legal way to seek to call into question the result of the 2013 election and that mechanism is enshrined in the the Representation of the People Act, 1976 section 70 of which states:
The
Tribunal shall declare the election as a whole to be void if it is satisfied that the result of the election has been materially affected by reason of:
(a) the failure of any person to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules; or
(b) the prevalence of extensive corrupt or illegal practice at the election.
As is evident from the above, the domain for calling into question the result of the election does not lie with the Supreme Court but rather the Election Tribunal, a forum chosen by the Parliament by virtue of its Act of 1976, a forum which Khan refuses to both recognize or respect, therefore his dilemma. If anybody here thinks that IK can plead the ineptitude of the Election Tribunal as the reason for any petition before the Supreme Court seeking the exercise of powers which the Parliament has reserved for the Tribunal, they have another thing coming their way.
Finally, it may also come to pass that the Tribunal itself when posed with the task of exercising its authority under section 70 decide that the petition has come too late and is barred by the limitation of time, that would be something now wouldn't it?
