On Wednesday, the Supreme Court announced its much awaited in the suo motu proceedings regarding the delay in the announcement of a date for elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In a 3-2 verdict, the court ruled that the polls in the two provinces must be held within 90 days of the dissolution of the assemblies. This verdict has averted a constitutional crisis for the time being, and also put other legal confusions to rest regarding the role of the President, the ECP, and the Governors of Punjab and KP.
Opinions were divided when Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial took a suo motu notice last week of the delay in holding polls, stating that there appeared to be a “lack of clarity” on the matter. However, the verdict is one that will not cause much controversy as it reinforces what the constitution has to say on the matter. Based on the verdict, for the polls in Punjab, because the governor did not dissolve the assembly, the president’s April 9 date is constitutionally competent. In the case of KP however, because the governor acted on the CM’s advice and dissolved the assembly, he is bound to consult with the ECP to announce the date and the date given by the president is invalid.
In addition to this, clear guidelines have also been outlined for the ECP, which has come under criticism recently for evading its responsibility. First, the ECP has to be proactively available to the president or governor for any consultations on the election dates. Second, if the polls for some reason cannot be held within 90 days, the ECP must propose a date that deviates to the barest minimum from the deadline. Given how the political landscape has deteriorated recently, this is perhaps the most ideal approach so that a clear mandate can emerge and the tussle for power can come to an end.
The decision was a split one though, with Justice Shah and Mandokhail arguing that when a constitutional issue was pending before a high court, it should not be interfered with and should rather be supported to strengthen the autonomy of provincial courts. This is a fair argument that has its merits, but this is a healthy disagreement to have which should be welcomed because the exceptionality of the circumstances is one that can be debated.
The encouraging thing here is that the top court helped pave a way out of the constitutional crisis which was holding the country hostage. There is now clarity and little room for debate over the role of key actors and institutions when it comes to announcing and holding the elections.