The Supreme Court on Wednesday announced separate verdicts on the suo motu notices taken over the delay in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Punjab Assembly elections, directing the authorities to hold elections in both provinces within 90 days.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial delivered the reserved verdict after a day of dramatic proceedings of nearly 10 hours by a five-member bench comprising Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel. Proceedings on Sumoto notices continued for two consecutive days from Monday to Tuesday.
The Supreme Court gave a three-to-two split decision, with a majority bench giving relief to the petitioners. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel objected to the admissibility of the petitions.
The Supreme Court had taken suo motu notice of the apparent delay in the elections to the two assemblies after President Arif Alvi announced the date for the elections on February 23, a move that drew sharp criticism from the government.
According to the Chief Justice, the suo motu notice was taken to find out who has the authority to give the date of the elections.
The verdict
Delivering the verdict, the Supreme Court said that the constitution has given 60 to 90 days time to hold elections after the dissolution of the assemblies and the procedure for general elections is different.
Chief Justice Bandial said that elections must be held within 90 days after the dissolution of the Assembly.
The court said that the KP Assembly was dissolved after the governor signed the summary, while the Punjab Assembly itself was dissolved as the governor did not sign the summary even after 48 hours.
The Supreme Court said the Constitution empowers the Governor to dissolve the Assembly under three conditions: under Article 112 or on the advice of the Chief Minister, Article 222 which says that elections are a matter for the Center and the Elections Act, 2017. Gives authority to talk. The Governor and the President have the authority to announce the date of elections.
Chief Justice Bandial said that if the Governor dissolves the Assembly, he will also announce the date.
The court said that if the governor does not dissolve the assembly, the president has the authority to dissolve the assembly under Article 57 and announce the date of elections. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Governor has a constitutional responsibility to announce the date.
The Supreme Court directed President Arif Alvi to announce the date of elections in Punjab in accordance with the Supreme Court’s order after consulting the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), and directed Governor KP to announce the date of the elections in his province. Announce the date of elections.
For the ECP, the Supreme Court ordered the President to immediately advise on the date of elections.
The court directed all the federal and provincial institutions to assist the electoral body in the election process and said that the elections in all the provinces should be held within the constitutional period.
Additionally, the Supreme Court directed the federal government to provide all facilities to the Election Commission to conduct the elections.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court disposed of the petitions related to the provincial elections as maintainable.
Tuesday’s proceedings
During yesterday’s hearing, the Supreme Court also asked the political parties – Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the ruling coalition – to agree on a mutual date for the polls, but they could not reach a consensus. Meanwhile, counsel for the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) asked the court to continue the proceedings before the Supreme Court reserved its verdict around 6:30 pm.
Meanwhile, President Arif Alvi’s lawyer Salman Akram Raja announced that his client would soon withdraw his notification for general elections in KP as the provincial governor had dissolved the assembly — unlike in Punjab, Where the governor did not.
Raja insisted that no one is complying with the President’s order, which is why he is supporting the court action.
