ISLAMABAD: Chief Election Commissioner Sikander Sultan Raja on Monday wrote to the Chairman of the Senate and the Speaker of the National Assembly proposing two important amendments to the law to give back the power to fix the date of elections to the Election Commission of Pakistan. Emphasis on making.
In separate letters (with the same text) to Senate Chairman Sadiq Sanjrani and National Assembly Speaker Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, he detailed how the Supreme Court of Pakistan on March 1 and April 5 had given its Constitutional Powers Commission Removed. Whether there is a favorable environment and conditions for conducting elections in a given time.
The proposed amendments (attached to the letter) are in Section 57 (1): The Commission shall announce the date or dates of general elections by notification in the Official Gazette and call upon the constituencies to elect their representatives. Section 58: Notwithstanding anything contained in section 57, the Commission may, at any time after the issue of notification under sub-section (1) of this section, make such changes in the election program announced in that notification for various stages of the election programme. can do. may issue a new election program with the date(s) of election or new polling, as in his opinion may be necessary for the purposes of this Act to be recorded in writing.
The CEC urged the custodians of both legislatures to place these amendments before Parliament for adoption. He wrote that the role of the President to fix a date for elections in case of dissolution of the National Assembly on the advice of the Prime Minister or the dissolution of the Lower House at the end of the term is not supported by any constitutional provision. . He argued that the announcement of the election date by the President is in gross violation of the spirit of the Constitution and Article 222 as it usurps the mandated powers of the Commission under Articles 218(3) and 219. Constitution. He also explained how the powers of the commission were terminated citing Daska and some other cases and how the inquiry against the corrupt officials involved in this by-election was stopped and dropped. He argued that the conduct of elections is subject to the necessary arrangements being made by the Commission to ensure that the standards of honesty, fairness and justice provided for in Article 218(2) are met. , under the Constitution, is the sole arbiter. To decide whether there are favorable conditions for holding elections or not. This mandate is not subordinated to any authority.
Perhaps for the first time, commenting on the judgments of the Supreme Court, he said that the March 1 and April 5 judgments took away the constitutional powers of the commission to determine whether the facts and circumstances were conducive to holding elections. Is. A fixed time for meeting the criteria mentioned in Article 218 (3). He said that the Commission constantly strives to uphold the rule of law, fair play, and merit in the true sense. However, he emphasized that the commission’s writ has been systematically challenged on several occasions. In the letter, he says that ‘in practice the authority of ECP has been abolished’.
The Chief Election Commissioner chose to mention that significant disciplinary interventions by the Commission in the past were stopped and set aside, which had ‘dismissed officials’ from ‘official duties’. Despite committing ‘serious irregularities in execution’, he gave a message of hiding behind legal orders. . “As a case in point; the Commission decided against all odds to take up the Daska incident. In the face of apparent resistance from high-level government officials and officials, the Commission initiated action against the miscreants concerned after two comprehensive enquiries. to bring them to book. This action sent a message to the administrative machinery that the Commission would not tolerate serious violations in its progress and would make every effort to uphold the letter of the law. It was for this reason that after Most of the by-elections in the then incumbent provincial government were lost and all stakeholders accepted the results as government officials were receptive and responsive to the ECP. However, instead of enhancing the legal process, Daska Disciplinary proceedings were stayed and eventually set aside, even though Section 55 of the Elections Act, 2017 gives the ECP the required powers. Consequently, the message that went out to the retreating workers was that they should continue their official duties. They can hide behind these legal orders despite serious irregularities in implementation. Thus the writ of ECP was severely compromised.
The CEC argued that the Commission’s writ was severely compromised at that time and now that the Punjab elections are around the corner, civil servants have been appointed as District Returning Officers (DROs), Returning Officers (ROs) and Assistant Returning Officers (AROs). ROs) have been appointed. Circumstances, why would they look to ECP? The Chief Election Commissioner also made a point referring to the threats given to the Commission and the Chief Election Commissioner and the ECP members and wrote, “CEC and ECP members were given death threats and their Khana was publicly harassed. When it reached the point of no return, the commission was forced to initiate contempt proceedings against the detractors and issued notices. Yet the issuance of show cause notices was again stayed, even though there was no final order against which a stay could be issued.
He continued that this is why the opponents did not bother to attend the proceedings and cited other such instances of judicial overreach that undermined the commission’s writ. He wondered if the commission could discharge its primary duty of conducting free, fair and transparent elections in this environment, questioning whether the administrative officers, political representatives and other institutions took the commission seriously. And given due importance to his instructions?
“The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is an independent constitutional body constituted under Article 218 (2) of the Constitution and mandated under Clause 3 of Article ibid to hold and conduct elections and to make such arrangements as may ensure necessary to make. Elections are conducted honestly, fairly, fairly and in accordance with law and protected against corrupt practices. The court interpreted Article 224 (2) in the judgment and said that general elections 90 It is a constitutional requirement. It is settled and settled law that the Constitution is to be read as a whole document for coherent interpretation and no provision should be read in isolation, lest it As a result, another important provision of the Constitution will be invalidated,” he wrote.
However, due weight has not been given to another constitutional imperative provided in Article 218 (3), which, if not implemented, may lead to cancellation of the standards prescribed thereunder, he said in the letter. The conduct of the election is dependent on the necessary arrangements being made by the Commission to ensure that the standards of honesty, fairness and justice provided for in Article 218(3) are met.
There are many other such instances of judicial overreach that have undermined the writ of the ECP. In a situation where the writ of the ECP has been repeatedly compromised, the question arises: (a) whether the ECP to the best of its ability in the given environment to conduct free, fair and transparent elections; Can perform its basic duty? ? (b) Will the administrative functionaries, political representatives and other institutions without which free, fair and transparent elections are not possible, take the Commission seriously and give due importance to its instructions? “And finally, in such circumstances, through administrative bodies and other institutions, is it possible to conduct elections in Punjab and KP in an efficient and transparent manner?” he said.
The letter states that the important role and duties of the Commission under the Constitution have been recognized by the Supreme Court in the famous “Workers Party Case” reported in PLO 2012 SC 681 and stated in para 40 that: “The Election Commission not only is responsible. to conduct the election itself but also to make all necessary arrangements for the said purpose before the day of election. By assigning such responsibility to the Election Commission, the Constitution ensures that before the day of election , then and all subsequent activities, undertaken in anticipation thereof, adhere to standards of fairness and justice, be honest, in accordance with the law. and free from corruption.”
Similarly, in para 3 of the judgment in the Al-Jihad Trust case reported in PLO 1997 SC 84, it is pointed out that the elections must be conducted in a fair, just and honest manner strictly in accordance with law. Those responsible for conducting such elections are bound to be as impartial, impartial and honest as possible in the discharge of their sacred duties under the Constitution and the law. It is emphasized in the constitution that corrupt practices are to be avoided. In fact, it is a difficult task by the Chief Election Commissioner. It cannot be said that they are subordinate to any authority while performing their duties in conducting free, fair and transparent elections. In its own right, Parliament shall be all-powerful in the field of legislation within the limits set by the Constitution.
The letter states that the legislative history shows that Parliament [Majlis Shura] enacted the Representation of the People Act 1976 to empower the Commission to exercise its powers, functions and duties under Articles 218(3) and 219 of the Constitution. Enable. Section 11 of the original Act of 1976 empowered the Commission to announce the date of elections unilaterally without the intervention of any third party. Section ibid was amended by Ordinance No. 11 of 1985 (12.1.1985) for the sole purpose of making the election of the President a one-man affair. The role of the President under the Constitution causes him to fix a date for holding general elections to assemblies, within 90 days from the date of dissolution of the National Assembly where he (the President) dissolves the National Assembly at his discretion. They do. Where a vote of no confidence has been passed against the Prime Minister, no other member of the National Assembly commands the confidence of a majority of the members of the National Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, as specified in a A meeting of the National Assembly has been called for this purpose.
Similar letters have also been written by the Secretary of the Commission to the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Secretary for Parliamentary Affairs.
