Supreme Court ruling on Punjab, KP elections expected today

Five-judge bench ‘almost’ wraps up hearing on suo motu notice n Chief Justice Bandial says court will decide who should announce elections date to end confusion in future n We are here to support the Constitution: CJP.

ISLAMABAD    -    The Supreme Court of Pakistan is most likely to announce the judg­ment in the suo motu notice taken by chief justice on the delay in holding elections in Punjab and Khyber Pa­khtunkhwa provinces on Wednesday (today). 

A five-member bench of the apex court head­ed by Chief Justice of Pa­kistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprised Justice Syed Man­soor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar conducted hearing of the suo motu notice and the petitions of the Speakers of the Punjab and the KP as­semblies and the Islam­abad High Court Bar As­sociation. 

Salman Akram Raja, representing the Presi­dent, told that regarding the election date for the KP Assembly the Presi­dent should have not an­nounced the date, add­ing that but he could give date for the elec­tions of the Punjab As­sembly as the Gover­nor was not giving date. Justice Mazhar inquired that whether the Presi­dent has withdrawn the notification with respect to the date for KP Assem­bly’s elections. Salman said he would do so.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned that is the President or­der with regard to the Punjab Assembly not in violation of the Lahore 

High Court judgment, which still holds the field as no one has challenged. The LHC sin­gle bench had ordered the ECP to give date for elections after holding consultation with the Punjab Governor. Salman re­plied that as the governor was not announcing the date there­fore the President gave the date. Time is essence and time is run­ning out, he said and added that 90 days’ time-frame needed to be taken seriously. 

Election Commission of Paki­stan (ECP)’s representative Sa­jeel Sheryar Swati informed the bench that the President for the general elections of 2013 and 2018 gave dates on the ad­vice of the Prime Minister. He said they have discussed the matter with the Punjab Gover­nor but he said as he had not dissolved the assembly there­fore can’t give date.

Advocate General Punjab Shan Gul contended that the Presi­dent does not have power to an­nounce date for the elections of Punjab Assembly, adding that Section 57(1) of the Election Act, 2917 runs contrary to the Article 112 (2) of the constitu­tion. He informed that the PTI government before the disso­lution of the provincial assem­bly created new four Divisions and six Districts. The judgment of the LHC reversed the PTI gov­ernment’s decision, adding now the delimitation has to take place in these Divisions and the Districts.

All the counsels of the polit­ical parties said that they are ready for the elections and what that the constitutional re­quirement should be met, but the country is facing the finan­cial crisis and there is also se­curity issue, while the Census would be published in April. They also said that the tenure of National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies of Sindh and Balochistan will end in Oc­tober, so why not wait for some more months.

In view of their submission Justice Mansoor suggested that why not the PTI and PDM show flexibility and decide about the elections amicably. The judge therefore had asked the coun­sels to seek instruction from their leadership. However, Fawad Chaudhry, former in­formation minister of PTI, said once the date for elections is ex­tended then it will become tra­dition. The chief justice then heard the counsel and reserved the judgment.

PPPP counsel Farooq H Naek contended that the President has to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, therefore the President order to give dates is nullity in the eyes of the Con­stitution. The President before deciding about the date should have written letter to the Prime Minister, but he invoked the dis­cretion under Article 48 with­out the PM advice.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar question on whose advice the President has to act when the assemblies are dissolved on the completion of their ten­ure. Is it the outgoing or the incoming prime minister? Naek responded that whoever is holding power at that rele­vant time.

He argued that under Or­der XXV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 that an ap­plication for the enforcement of any other fundamental right shall be filed in the Registry. It shall also state whether the applicant has moved the High Court concerned for the same relief and, if so, with what re­sult. He questioned whether the petitioners had disclosed to the apex court that they have moved to the High Court or not for relief.

The chief justice said that the 90 days requirement un­der Article 224 needed to be met, adding the Peshawar High Court took 2 to 3 weeks to is­sue only the notice, while a single member bench of the LHC had passed the judgment, but the Intra-Court Appeal is pending. There is urgency of this case, so where they (peti­tioners) will go. We are here to support the Constitution. The date should have been given, but the dispute is who would announce the date.

Naek said that the Supreme Court should have directed the High Court to decide the case within two days. The chief jus­tice then said that they are try­ing to resolve the issue. The superior courts must avoid to hear the political issues, add­ing; “We don’t take suo motu on every issue.” He stated that last year the apex court took two suo motu notices and this year only one. He added, “We are looking who should an­nounce the date so that there remains no confusion in the future.”

Meanwhile, at one point in the hearing, CJP Bandial remarked, “In the current situation, elec­tions are necessary in 90 days.” 

“Today is the second day [of this case] in the Supreme Court and the case is almost over,” the CJP said, adding that the court was supporting the Constitu­tion instead of any party.