LHC ‘upholds’ NA Speaker’s decision on PTI MNAs resignations.

 

LAHORE    -    The Lahore High Court (LHC) Friday directed the Election Commis­sion of Pakistan (ECP) to immediately announce the date for elections of the Punjab Assembly. 

Justice Jawad Hassan late Friday pronounced the verdict which was reserved earlier in the day. The judge ruled that the ECP was bound to carry out elections within 90 days of the assembly’s dissolution and that it should issue the election schedule.

“The ECP is direct­ed to immediately an­nounce the date of elec­tion of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab with the notification specifying reasons, af­ter consultation with the governor of Punjab, being the constitution­al head of the province, to ensure that the elec­tions are held not lat­er than ninety days as per the mandate of the Constitution,” says the court verdict. 

The Pakistan Teh­reek-e-Insaf (PTI) par­ty welcomed the court verdict. PTI’s Vice Pres­ident Fawad Chaudhry called the decision ‘his­toric’ and said that it is a victory for the Consti­tution and the law. “The federal government

should sit with us and discuss the national election,” he said. Earlier, the Lahore High Court (LHC) reserved its verdict on petitions seeking directions for announcement of a date for holding elections in the prov­ince. The single bench compris­ing Justice Jawad Hassan heard the petitions, filed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and oth­ers. During the proceedings, the Punjab chief secretary and in­spector general of police (IGP) appeared before the court on being summoned.

To a court query, IGP Punjab Usman Anwar submitted that he was not aware of the back­ground of the case, adding “We have given our recommenda­tions to the Election Commis­sion of Pakistan (ECP) and would implement the ECP deci­sion about election”.

The chief secretary Punjab also submitted “We are bound to implement the orders of the court and the ECP.” Subsequent­ly, after hearing the stance of the IGP and chief secretary, the court allowed them to leave the courtroom.

At this stage, the ECP’s coun­sel started advancing his argu­ments and raised objections on maintainability of the petitions. He submitted that the petitions were related to the date of elec­tions only, but it was not the duty of the commission to give the date for the elections, add­ing that the commission could not be impleaded as party in the matter. There is no such law that requires the ECP to give the date for the elections, he added. He submitted that the president had also not been made party to the matter, besides the federal government.

He submitted that the com­mission approached the judi­ciary, but it refused to give judg­es due to the large number of pending cases. Police, judiciary and other institutes had refused to give the staff, he said, and questioned how the ECP could conduct elections in these cir­cumstances.

At this, the court questioned whether the staff was also re­quired for the elections. 

To which, the ECP’s counsel submitted that not only staff but funds were also required. He submitted that the ECP re­quired Rs14 billion for the elec­tions, adding that the date for election had to be given by the governor or the president.

ECP’s counsel further submit­ted that the date for elections might be delayed. He ques­tioned how elections could be transparent if the elections to the National and provincial as­semblies were not held simulta­neously. “If elections to the Pun­jab Assembly were held earlier, and the National Assembly lat­er on, then there would be no caretaker government in Pun­jab. If there would be no care­taker government in Punjab, then how transparent elections could be held,” he questioned.

He submitted that it was no­where written in the Constitu­tion that the ECP would give the date for the general election.

Punjab governor’s coun­sel Advocate Shahzad Shaukat submitted that already a re­ply had been filed on behalf of his client in a petition, and the same could also be considered in other petitions.

He submitted that under Arti­cle 105, the governor had to act on an advice. He argued that if the governor dissolves the as­sembly, then he was bound to announce the date for the elec­tions, but if the assembly stands dissolved on the force of self-ex­ecutory provision of Article 112, then he was not bound to give a date for elections. The constitu­tion did not state that if the as­sembly stands dissolved on the force of self-executory provi­sion of Article 112, then the gov­ernor was bound to give a date for elections, he added.

At this, the court questioned if there was no answer in the Constitution, then whether the president could be asked to an­nounce a date.

To which, the governor’s counsel pleaded with the court to dismiss the petitions, say­ing that if the governor was not bound to announce the date for the elections, then the petitions should be dismissed.

However, PTI’s counsel Bar­rister Ali Zafar submitted that it was clearly written in the Constitution that the elections would be held within 90 days after dissolution of the assem­bly, adding that not giving the date for the elections could not be left unattended.

At this, the court questioned what was the method of an­nouncing the date for the elec­tions.

The PTI’s counsel submitted that the date was announced through a notification. The president was not refusing to give a date for elections, and if the court would give orders, then the president would an­nounce the date for elections, he added.

The court, after hearing argu­ments of all parties, reserved its verdict.

Meanwhile, the Lahore High Court (LHC) has upheld the deci­sion made by National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf on PTI MNAs resignations, accord­ing to a statement issued by the NA speaker’s office issued yes­terday. The NA speaker on Jan­uary 24 had accepted the resig­nations of 43 PTI MNAs, a day after the PTI announced the de­cision to withdraw the resigna­tions. On February 3, the law­makers had moved the LHC, requesting it to set aside the Election Commission of Paki­stan’s de-notifications.

Copy of the LHC’s verdict has been received by the speaker’s office, claimed an official, add­ing that the court had refused to suspend the ECP’s notification and barred the authorities from conducting by-polls in the con­stituencies until completion of the proceedings of the case.

“No interim relief can be granted against the decision of the speaker,” the speaker’s of­fice said quoting the verdict.

The LHC’s verdict proved Ashraf’s stance on the resig­nations as “correct”, read the statement issued by the speak­er’s office. All the matters were decided by looking at the con­stitutional and legal aspects, it added.

Although, the NA speaker in­vited the PTI’s lawmakers to appear before him repeated­ly but the MNAs turned a deaf ear to the calls and raised ob­jections when he accepted their resignations, which was uncon­stitutional.