ISLAMABAD: The five-member bench of the Supreme Court hearing the petition against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone the elections seems divided on whether the court’s March 1 order was upheld by a majority of 4-3. was given from or 3. -2.
The confusion arose as the Supreme Court resumed hearing the election delay case today, a day after the National Assembly termed “undue interference of the judiciary in political matters as a cause of political instability in the country”. A resolution of strong condemnation was passed. .
On Tuesday, the government also introduced a bill in the NA titled “Supreme Court (Practice and Protection) Bill, 2023” that seeks to curtail the powers of the Chief Justice.
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has filed a petition against the ECP’s March 22 order to postpone elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, citing several reasons.
A larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Atta Bandial and comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel is hearing the petition.
Today’s hearing
At the start of the hearing, Justice Mandukhel explained his remarks from the previous hearing, saying that it had created “a great deal of confusion”.
“I stand by my detailed order,” the justice said, explaining that part of the ruling was about administrative powers.
He said that the Chief Justice will be asked to form a committee of judges to look into the rules of administrative powers.
“In the second part of the judgment, four of us dismissed the notices and petitions,” he said, adding that the four-judge judgment was the order of the court.
However, he said that this court order was not issued by Chief Justice Bandyal.
He questioned that when the decision was not made, how did the President give the date, how did the Election Commission issue the schedule?
He further said that he can check the court record file, it does not contain the court order.
Justice Mandukhel said that the order of the court is signed by all the judges.
The ruling coalition lawyers then proceeded to the rostrum.
Senior advocate Farooq H Naik requested the court to constitute a full court to explain the March 1 verdict.
“It is necessary [to meet] the requirements of fairness to decide whether it was a 3-2 or 4-3 split decision,” Naik maintained. He said that the fate of the entire country depends on this issue as the nation is stuck in a dilemma.
Naik added that the issue of jurisdiction should be settled first.
On this, Chief Justice Bandyal directed the lawyer to submit his application in writing and warned against spoiling the atmosphere of the court.
“[We] will decide the matter when there is an application,” the chief justice said, announcing that the court would first hear the arguments of the ECP.
On the inquiry of Chief Justice Bandyal, ECP’s lawyer Irfan Qadir appeared in the court.
Opening his arguments, Qadir said that this was his first appearance in the case.
Chief Justice Bandyal told them that the ECP has to submit the documents today.
To this, the lawyer said that there is a procedure for this and “why is there a rush in court”.
After that, Chief Justice Bandyal directed them to present their arguments if they did not bring the documents.
“You’re replacing another lawyer,” he said.
On this, Qadir said that he is leaving the rostrum and the court can do whatever it wants and choose the lawyer as per its wish.
Chief Justice Bandyal remarked that Hamid Ali Shah and Sujeel Swati had appeared on behalf of the Election Commission in the previous hearing.
At this Qadir left the courtroom, Swati proceeded to the rostrum for arguments.
Justice Mandukhel inquired on the application that when the order of the court was not received, how did the Election Commission issue the election schedule?
He said that the order of the Supreme Court is the order of the court which has not been issued. He also asked if the ECP had seen the summary order.
On this, the lawyer took a position that he may have misunderstood the decision.
Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar inquired whether the summary judgment said it was a 4-3 split decision. He said that nowhere in the March 1 decision did it say that it was a 4-3 split decision.
Justice Akhtar said that it is the judge’s right to dissent, but a minority of judges cannot claim to be part of the majority under any law.
He further said that five judges heard the case in open court and signed the order after issuing the verdict.
On this occasion, Justice Mandukhel inquired that in the short judgment it has been said that the judges gave a dissenting note.
He said that the dissenting note clearly states that Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Athar Manullah agree with the decision, did their decision disappear in thin air?
On this, Chief Justice Bandyal requested that the matter related to the Chambers be left where it belongs and said that the Attorney General of Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan will give his arguments on this matter.
However, Justice Mandukhel inquired that what is the position of ECP on the detailed decision?
The lawyer told the court that he did not take the election body’s direction on the 4-3 split decision.
The lawyer said that the election body started implementing the court’s order as per its understanding and after receiving it on March 3 proposed a date as per Section 57 of the Election Act.
Asked about the timing of the Election Commission’s order postponing polling, the lawyer said it was issued on the evening of March 22, by which time all the work related to scheduling and nomination papers had been completed.
He then apprised the court about the army’s refusal to provide security and sensitive agency reports on terror threats in KP.
As Chief Justice Bandyal asked if the Election Commission had apprised the President of these issues, Swati said they had.
The Chief Justice remarked that the reports regarding terrorism in KP are serious.
On which Justice Akhtar remarked that the ECP is relying on the letters of February 8, while the Supreme Court gave its verdict on March 8.
He asked that in February you knew that you have to hold the election in October, then why the date of April 30 was suggested to the President.
On this, the ECP’s counsel argued that they had referred to intelligence agencies’ reports as background but the decision to postpone the polls was taken on March 22.
He told the court that the Finance Ministry told the ECP that they could not release funds for elections in the current financial year. Further, the ECP was told that the Punjab Police lacked 297,000 security personnel required for the elections.
Elections were to be held in 2023 anyway, Chief Justice
Justice Bandyal while remarking that the elections were to be held in 2023 in any case, asked whether funds were not kept for it in the annual budget.
On this, the AGP maintained that the budget for the elections has to be secured in the next financial year. He further said that he did not consider the early dissolution of the assemblies.
On the inquiry of the Chief Justice, AGP said that 47 billion rupees will be spent if the elections are completed in the entire country and 20 billion rupees will be spent if the provincial elections are held prematurely.
ECP’s counsel continued to argue that political figures faced security threats during campaigning and not on election day as militants were leading terrorist attacks from Afghanistan since the US withdrawal.
Chief Justice Bandyal asked that the information you are giving is of a serious nature, have you not brought all this to the notice of the President? He added that if the President was not informed about it, it was the ECP’s fault as the President had given the date of the election on the advice of the commission.
Besides, the lawyer of ECP told the court that it will take six months to complete the operation in the Kacha region of Punjab.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Bandyal remarked that the issue of terrorism is real. However, he said that despite this problem existing for the last 20 years, elections were held in the country.
“In the 90s when communalism and terrorism were on the rise, three polls were conducted,” he added.
He observed that the ECP suggested the dates without informing the President of these facts.
In addition, Justice Akhtar inquired that if the institutions provide assistance, will the Election Commission conduct the elections?
“Apparently, the entire case of ECP was based on letters [threat alerts], while non-availability of funds is also an issue,” he observed.
After which the court adjourned the hearing for some time.
Registrar office accepts ruling alliance’s pleasÂ
Earlier, the Registrar’s Office of the Supreme Court had accepted the separate pleas of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazal (JUI-F) as parties to the case. .
The coalition government had decided to become a party in the case a day ago.
Members of the ruling coalition had filed petitions in the Supreme Court to become parties and will present their stand when the hearing resumes.
Tuesday’s hearingÂ
A day earlier, Chief Justice Bandyal had observed that the ECP had no authority and legal backing to postpone the polls in Punjab till October 8 and issued his hasty order.
During the hearing which lasted for more than three hours, Chief Justice Bandyal remarked that ‘elections can be postponed only by declaring emergency. He also asked whether the ECP decision recommended imposition of emergency.
The Chief Justice remarked that it is clear that the ECP does not have the power to change the date of elections in Punjab by the President. The Chief Justice remarked that in fact the ECP hastily passed its order on March 22, postponing the elections to October 8.
He said that the court will not delay the urgent matter, he raised a very simple question whether the ECP is competent to extend the date of election.
The Chief Justice said that if the ECP has the power, the question will not arise and the matter will be over.
The Chief Justice further said that maintaining the rule of law is essential for the functioning of democracy, adding that democracy cannot flourish without the rule of law.
Farooq H. Naik, representing the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), however, stressed that democracy also requires trust, adding that the petitions will decide the fate of political parties.
“We are the representatives of the people and the stakeholders in the immediate matter,” Naik said, adding that there is anarchy and fascism at the moment.
The bill
The “Supreme Court (Practice and Protection) Bill, 2023” prescribes that every cause, appeal or matter before the Supreme Court be heard and disposed of by a bench constituted by the Chief Justice of Pakistan and a committee consisting of the two most senior judges. will be given. Order of seniority.
It further states that any matter of exercise of original jurisdiction under Clause (3) of Article 184 of the Constitution shall first be placed before the Committee for examination and if the Committee is of the opinion that the application of the law It is a question of public importance. If any of the fundamental rights are involved, he shall constitute a bench of at least three judges of the Supreme Court, which may also include members of the committee for deciding the matter.
It recommends that an appeal be filed within 30 days from the final order of a Bench of the Supreme Court, which has exercised jurisdiction to constitute a larger Bench of the Supreme Court and to hear such appeal. Therefore, it will be decided within a period of not more than fourteen days.
Additionally, it gives a party the right to appoint counsel of his choice to file a review petition.
An application seeking urgent or interim relief filed in any cause, appeal or matter shall be fixed for hearing within 14 days from the date of filing.
