Reiterating the impartiality of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Atta Bandial said on Tuesday that “the past will not be used against the government” and that the bench has a “pure heart”.
The Chief Justice made these remarks while hearing the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s order to hold elections in Punjab on May 14.
The application was heard by a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Atta Bandial comprising Justice Muneeb Akhtar and Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
Today’s hearing
At the beginning of the hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan came to the rostrum and started presenting his arguments. He said the court’s remarks a few days ago had left a “wrong impression”.
“Yesterday the court was asked why the Election Commission did not raise the points earlier,” he said, adding that the bench also remarked that the federal government was earlier arguing that the decision to hold elections was a “minority decision”. “was .
In response to these issues, the Attorney General said: “The point is that if elections are held in a province, the elections of the National Assembly will be affected.”
He further said that the federal government had earlier raised the point of considering the decision of 4/3 as a minority decision.
Hearing these remarks, Chief Justice Bundyal said: “We were happy yesterday that the legal points were presented before the court. You need not panic.”
He assured the Attorney General that the apex court would consider any reasonable points raised before taking a decision.
“Legal points were raised earlier in the court but were not discussed,” he said, adding that the review jurisdiction was discussed in the court yesterday.
“The past will not be used against the government,” he said, stressing the court’s impartiality.
“Tell your colleagues not to speak so harshly at our door […] We work for Allah, that’s why we are sitting quietly,” remarked the Chief Justice.
He then asked the AGP to tell “who” asked him to explain, that the court was sitting with a “pure heart”.
“Statements made in other contexts were reported in such a way that they gave a false impression,” he said, lamenting that the court’s remarks were misreported.
Chief Justice Bandial remarked that it was reported that the court had given Mercedes to Imran Khan.
“Sir, I don’t even use a Mercedes,” he said, adding that the PRO also said that the police had arranged a bulletproof Mercedes for Khan but the matter was diverted.
Scope of Revision Petition
ECP counsel Azam Swati during the proceedings presented further arguments in favor of the body’s stand that the scope of the revision petition should be widened.
He said that the court always described the constitution as a living document.
The ultimate institution of justice is the Supreme Court. Therefore, the jurisdiction cannot be curtailed,” he argued.
On this, Chief Justice Bandial questioned whether 150 years of judicial precedents have become ineffective.
According to 150 years of judicial precedents, there is a difference between the scope of revision and appeal, he said, adding that the ECP’s counsel did not respond to the query since yesterday.
Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar remarked that if we accept your argument regarding the scope as correct, the rules of the Supreme Court will be null and void. He further said that the rules of the Supreme Court have not been amended yet.
He further pointed out that if the scope is extended, many old cases will also come up for review.
How can Order 26 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which deals with revision petitions, not be fully enforced?” he asked, adding that if “Order 26” is not fully enforced. , then the period for filing revision will also expire.
“Can someone file a revision after 10 years and say the rules are not fully applicable?” Justice Akhtar inquired.
He remarked that you probably have no idea of the consequences when your argument is accepted.
On this, ECP’s counsel said that the period for filing revision should not expire.
Justice Akhtar inquired that you are the first person to explore this point in 70 years, so tell the results.
On this occasion, Justice Ahsan reiterated that the scope of revision has been mentioned in the rules of the Supreme Court.
Swati argued that the statutes cannot bar the filing of revision petitions as it is mandated by the Constitution.
Returning to the previous point of time limit, Justice Ahsan remarked: “The Constitution does not even provide for a revision period. Can a revision petition be filed after 20 years of the judgment?
He further asked: “If the rule relating to the period of review can be applied, how can the rule relating to its scope not apply?”
Swati replied: “The makers of the Supreme Court rules did not limit the jurisdiction in constitutional cases.”
Stating that he was presenting the case before the country’s top three judges, the ECP lawyer said: “The law changes with time.”
Chief Justice Bandial then raised the issue of the court’s automatic powers and commented: “According to you, the use of [Article] 184/3 has gone too far.”
It is also possible that there have been errors in Article 184/3 decisions, and asked: “Do you think it is not right to limit the scope of the review?”
He further said that AGP’s opinion will be taken on this point.
Address issue of Punjab polls: CJP
The chief justice then directed Swati to focus on the real issue: the Punjab election date.
Swati said that the issue of announcing the date of elections had come to the court for the first time.
The Chief Justice reminded them that the ECP himself had said that he would conduct the elections by providing security and funds.
“Now what is the Shariah status of all these points?” He added that the 9-member bench had raised important questions in its order.
However, at that time the interests of the political parties were connected elsewhere.
Criticizing the government, the Chief Justice said that at the time the order was issued, the government raised objections on the bench instead of arguing on legal points.
He said that on the order of the court, a 5-member bench was formed out of the original 9 members.
A 7-member bench was never formed, so how did the 4/3 decision come about? he asked.
Chief Justice Bandial remarked that if it was not a matter of public interest, the case would have been decided in two minutes.
Azam Swati said that the Commission had written a letter to the President on the order of the court.
CJP asks ECP why president was not briefed properly
However, the Chief Justice turned his guns on the electoral body and said: “The Election Commission did not inform the President of the situation which he is now informing the court.
“The President was written only to give the date.”
Why did the Election Commission not recommend simultaneous elections across the country to the President? he asked.
The Chief Justice also said that the President was not informed about Article 218/3, 1970 elections, security situation or lack of funds.
He taunted the ECP counsel saying that he was asking for more powers in the revision without presenting the ground reality or hard facts.
“Even if the Constitution allows it, keep your eyes and mind open before using it.”
He then asked Swati to continue his arguments.
Referring to the Hobara Bustard poaching case, Swati said the court has revised its decision.
“Then, the review petitions against the court decision to reinstate the 16,000 dismissed employees were disposed of,” he said.
In this case, the court exercised its power to grant fundamental rights and complete justice, he argued, as the court overruled its own decision in the Judges’ case.
After which the hearing was adjourned till May 25 (Wednesday) at 12 noon.
ECP’s petition
The election watchdog filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its order passed on April 4, which fixed May 14 as the date for holding elections in Punjab province.
It was said that under the constitution, the authority to announce the date of general elections is vested in other bodies other than a judicial body. Therefore, the revised decree “violates the vital principle of trichotomy of powers and is thus not sustainable”.
Elections – essentially a domain of the Election Commission under Article 218 (3) of the Constitution read with other provisions of the Constitution – are the sole responsibility of the Election Commission of Pakistan, the ECP claimed.
Besides, the ECP had taken a stand that the general elections of the National Assembly cannot be fair in the presence of an elected government in Punjab.
“Fair elections cannot be held in the presence of an elected government in Punjab”, the revision petition said, adding that the voter/voter will vote in favor of the candidates of the political party which has an elected government in Punjab.
