ISLAMABAD: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) petition on Monday challenging the Supreme Court’s earlier order regarding the Punjab Assembly elections.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Atta Bandial comprising Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar will hear the petition a day after the date of May 14 on which the Supreme Court had ordered the elections. . province of the country.
The Supreme Court’s first verdict on a petition filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), heard by an eighty-three-judge bench, came after months of drama surrounding the elections.
The PTI-led Punjab government dissolved the provincial assembly in January to force the ruling coalition to hold snap elections. However, the government has consistently maintained that the elections will be held in October or November this year.
The Electoral Authority had postponed the elections in Punjab till October which was challenged by the PTI. In an April 4 order, the Supreme Court declared the ECP’s decision unconstitutional, without legal authority or jurisdiction, prima facie void and of no legal effect. He ordered the Election Commission to hold elections in Punjab on May 14 and directed the federal government to release Rs 21 billion for elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. However, the government has not yet released the funds. Subsequently, the ECP approached the Supreme Court for a review of the April 4 directive earlier this month.
In a 14-page petition, the Election Organizing Authority said the Supreme Court should review its decision as the judiciary “does not have the power to give dates for elections”.
Citing various legalities and reasons behind his statement, the ECP said, “Such powers exist elsewhere under the Constitution but certainly do not lie in any court.”
The electoral body accused the Supreme Court of ignoring its constitutional jurisdiction, asserting that it had assumed the role of a public institution in giving history. “Thus the court’s intervention is required to remedy an error which has effectively changed the settled constitutional principle of the country.”
