ISLAMABAD: A five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing on PTI’s plea against the Election Commission’s order of March 22, with Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel explaining his remarks in the previous hearing. Hoy said they had caused ‘a great deal of confusion’.
Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Atta Bandial, the bench includes Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel.
“I stand by my detailed order,” Justice Mandokhel said, explaining that part of the judgment 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.
On Tuesday, Mandokhel had remarked that the number of judges upholding the March 1 verdict was an internal matter for the apex court.
“In the second part of the judgment, four of us dismissed the suo motu notices and petitions,” he said, adding that the four-judge judgment was a court order. However, he said that this order was not issued by the Chief Justice.
When the decision did not come, how did the president give the date? And how did the Election Commission release the schedule? Justice Mandokhel inquired. The Election Commission counsel replied that the decision of March 1 was implemented, after the court order, the ECP contacted the President who gave the date of April 30.
He further said that the date of the election was fixed and the schedule was issued and then the preparations for the election started. He said that Article 218 of the Constitution is more important than any other law. The ECP’s counsel added that the Constitution also mentions a conducive environment for elections and as per Article 224 the elections should be held within 90 days. Justice Mandokhel asked if the ECP had seen the summary order, Azam Swati said that the commission may have. Misunderstood
However, Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that nowhere in the March 1 dissenting note was it written that the decision was 4-3.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that it is the right of the judges to disagree, the minority cannot claim to be in the majority. Justice Akhtar further said that 5 judges heard the case in open court and signed the verdict.
Justice Mandokhel, however, observed that the counsel did not answer his question, and said that his dissenting notes were contained in the short order, which was in agreement with the judgment of Justices Yahya Afridi and Athar Manullah.
However, Chief Justice Omar Atta Bandial remarked that the consultation in the chamber should be kept to himself.
The ECP lawyer said the army refused to provide manpower. He said that according to the constitution, elections should be held in a transparent, peaceful and conducive environment.
Azam Swati maintained that the Election Commission had written letters to the Army, Rangers and Frontier Corps for security, adding that the agencies had given secret reports to the Commission which were shown to the court. He said that reports indicate the presence of TTP and various other banned organizations in Bhakkar and Mianwali.
The ECP lawyer further said that 412,000 security personnel were requested for election security, but there is a shortage of 298,000 security personnel.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar, however, questioned whether the ECP knew in February that the elections should be held in October and on the other hand, the ECP said that he could not even think of deviating from the court order.
If the election was to be held in October, then why did the President give the date of the election to April 30? The judge asked that the ECP order said that 25 billion rupees were required to hold the election, but the court on the second day gave 25 billion rupees. Billions of rupees were reported. yesterday
However, the ECP lawyer said that Rs 5 billion had already been released to the ECP, the finance ministry said it could not release funds for elections in the current financial year and the finance secretary said Rs 20 billion. It will be impossible to issue Rs.
The Supreme Court said that without elections, no democratic government can function in the country, so there is an urgent need to reduce political rivalries that affect other institutions.
The court sought response from the federal government on the shortest possible dates for announcing election dates in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The court also sought a written assurance from the government as well as the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to bring down the political temperature, end political rivalries and move forward to bring the country out of the current political crisis, smooth democratic process. Paved the way. .
The court directed Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan to seek instructions from the Ministry of Defense and Interior on how the security situation can be normalized in the shortest possible time to ensure the holding of elections in the two provinces.
The Chief Justice remarked that the purpose of proceeding in the instant case is to uphold the Constitution and not to give any advantage to anyone.
A democratic government will not function without elections. Therefore, we as a nation have to prepare but not to surrender, the Chief Justice remarked.
He said that as a result of the political conflict between the political forces, other institutions of the country are being affected.
The Chief Justice remarked that fair elections are needed to reduce political rivalries.
The Chief Justice remarked that ‘players come when there is fair play but not gladiators’ and asked the Election Commission to come up with a comprehensive election plan. He said that the election can be held in two days if not in one day.
However, Pakistan People’s Party lawyer Farooq H Naik came to the rostrum and said that a full court should be constituted on the issue as the nation is confused.
Justice Mandokhel inquired as to why a full court should be constituted, he said that the same seven-member bench should hear the case. Naik also requested the court to make PPP also a party in the case.
The Chief Justice, however, made the observation that the elections were to be held in 2023 anyway, and asked if there was no budget for the 2023 elections in the fiscal year budget.
On this, the Attorney General said that the budget for the elections had to be kept in the next financial year because it was not known that the provincial assembly would be dissolved prematurely.
In response to a question, the Attorney General clarified that if elections are held across the country at the same time, 47 billion rupees will be spent, but in case of separate elections, additional expenses will be 20 billion rupees.
Swati said that the Special Secretary Home has told him that political figures are facing security threats and according to the Ministry of Home Affairs security threats will exist not only on the election day but also during the election campaign. He said that the Ministry of Interior also referred to the attack on Imran Khan.
The lawyer said the commission was told that it was “impossible” to provide security for the election without deploying the army.
The Chief Justice remarked that terrorism has been a problem in Pakistan for the past two decades, but elections were held despite this.
He further said that in the 1990s when communism and terrorism were on the rise, elections were held three times.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan questioned how the ECP could change the date given by the respective governor and president, highlighting that the constitution clearly spelled out who would provide the polling date. He also inquired whether Section 58 of the Election Act is beyond the Constitution of Pakistan.
The Chief Justice remarked that the Election Commission should have approached the Supreme Court and convinced the bench.
Addressing the ECP counsel, the Chief Justice said that you have not yet convinced us how October 8 is a suitable date for the elections. What’s so magical about October 8?”
The Chief Justice inquired who gave you the guarantee of October 8 and why not August or September 8?
The Chief Justice remarked that the elections were delayed in 1988 on the orders of the court and no one objected to the postponement of the elections due to the situation in 2008.
Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing of the case till today (Thursday).
