A day after Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel’s strongly dissenting note on March 1 verdict on Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Atta Bandial remarked that it was his is an “opinion” and has nothing to do with the ongoing case.
The Chief Justice made these remarks when the Supreme Court resumed hearing on Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision regarding the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections.
Chief Justice Bandyal is heading the five-member larger bench hearing the petition. Besides the Chief Justice, the bench includes Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel.
The Imran Khan-led party had challenged the decision of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to postpone the elections in Punjab till October 8.
The electoral body’s announcement came after financial and security officials expressed reluctance to support the electoral process.
Subsequently, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Governor Haji Ghulam Ali also urged the electoral body to hold the general elections on the same date (October 8) in view of increasing security threats from terrorist groups operating from the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. There are elections in Punjab.
Today’s hearing
At the beginning of the hearing, Chief Justice Bandyal welcomed the new Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan. Looking at “good friend” Farooq H. Naik, the chief justice remarked that the court would need the help of senior counsel on the matter.
The Chief Justice remarked that the court did not want to drag the matter.
He said that according to yesterday’s order, the jurisdiction of the ECP will be seen by the court while the request of the ruling coalition parties to become party to the case will be considered later.
Chief Justice Bandyal said that “rule of law and democracy are two sides of the same coin, there should be mutual tolerance, restraint and law and order.”
Meanwhile, Naik intervened and told the bench that he is also a stakeholder in the case.
On this, the Chief Justice assured the senior counsel that no one denied Naik’s importance but he personally felt that he should not get into a legal dispute.
He said that the parties have to decide the direction of the situation while the court has to present the facts.
“My position on the March 1 decision is that the law empowers the President to give the date of elections. The Chief Justice said if you want clarification on the March 1 decision, file a separate petition. He added that the case The “simple question” was whether the ECP could change the election date or not.
The Chief Justice said that if the ECP has the authority, the matter will be resolved.
On the other hand, the Attorney General took the position that the court decision is 4-3, so there is no order. He further said that if it was not a court order, then the President cannot give the date of the election.
AGP said, “March 1 should be decided first.
On this, Chief Justice Bandyal remarked that now the matter is not about giving the date of election but about the delay. He said that elections are necessary for democracy.
Two honorable judges gave the verdict. This is the opinion of these two judges but is not relevant to the present case. The Chief Justice remarked that the sensitive issue should not be neglected.
The AGP replied that the present petition seeks implementation of the court orders in the March 1 judgment.
On this, Chief Justice Bandyal remarked that the members of the bench are there to examine the questions raised in the petition. He added that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction was not limited to the petition.
On this point, the AGP intervened and appealed to constitute a full court on the matter.
“It is requested that this is an important matter and if the bench deems it fit, a full court should be constituted,” the AGP said.
Justice Mandukhel, however, remarked that the number of judges upholding the March 1 verdict was an internal matter of the Supreme Court.
He questioned whether the constitution requires elections to be held within 90 days or not and whether the ECP can postpone the date of elections.
After hearing Justice Mandukhel, the Chief Justice thanked the judge for clearing the matter.
On the other hand, PTI’s lawyer Ali Zafar said that every institution has to work within its constitutional limits.
On this, Chief Justice Bandyal remarked that he expected the PTI’s senior leadership to behave the same way as expressed by the lawyer. He also asked the lawyer whether he had spoken to the senior leadership of the party.
“PTI will have to be the first [to speak] as they have approached the court,” the chief justice said. He advised the parties in the case to avoid differences, saying that there is violence, intolerance and economic crisis in the country.
On this, Barrister Zafar said that if the elections are delayed, these crises will intensify.
After that, Chief Justice Bandyal remarked that he would order the government only if PTI takes the initiative.
Ruling alliance decides to become party in case
Hours before the hearing resumed on Tuesday, the ruling coalition decided to join the case.
The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), Pakistan Peoples Party and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) have filed applications in the Supreme Court to become parties, and present their stand when the hearing resumes. will do
Monday’s hearing Â
Hearing the petition on Monday, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Election Commission for dragging its feet on the elections in Punjab, and sought guarantees from the government and the PTI for free, fair and transparent elections.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandyal had said that holding timely general elections “honestly, fairly, justly and in accordance with law” is required by our constitution for a democratic system of government.
“Any defect, omission or failure in the conduct of general elections is, fundamentally, a matter of public importance affecting the fundamental rights of the voting public,” he said.
The court had questioned the legality of the ECP’s March 22 order postponing the elections, saying that the order obstructed its decision to enforce the fundamental rights of the people of the two provinces.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had ruled in a spontaneous notice case that elections to the Punjab and KP Assemblies should be held within 90 days.
In the light of the partition decision, President Arif Alvi announced the date of elections in Punjab after consulting the ECP.
Apart from serving notices to all the parties in yesterday’s hearing, the Supreme Court also served notices to the Governors of the two provinces through their Chief Secretaries and sought their reply today on the legal points raised by the petitioner.
He also asked the ECP to be ready to assist on legal questions and factual points in today’s hearing.
