teX
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2021
- Messages
- 353
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
wow
such an A$$ hole judge. literally acting like sharif's nokar. next CJP will be nokar of sharifs...
hold tight!
Last edited:
All eyes on CJP after ECP volte-face
- Thread starter ghazi52
- Start date
such an A$$ hole judge. literally acting like sharif's nokar. next CJP will be nokar of sharifs...
hold tight!
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 103,030
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
,..,.,
Haseeb Bhatti
April 4, 2023
The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone polls to the Punjab Assembly till Oct 8 was “unconstitutional” and fixed May 14 as the date for polls in the province.
“The impugned order dated 22.03.2023 made by the Election Commission of Pakistan is declared to be unconstitutional, without lawful authority or jurisdiction, void ab-initio, of no legal effect and is hereby quashed,” the ruling said. “Neither the Constitution nor the law empowers the Commission to extend the date of elections beyond the 90 days period as provided in Article 224(2) of the Constitution.”
The ECP had on March 22 announced that the elections in Punjab would be held on October 8. The date was earlier set on April 30, in consultation with the president.
The reserved verdict was issued today by a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
In the written verdict, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, the top court restored the election schedule issued by the ECP on March 8 with certain modifications.
The changes made by the court in the election programme are:
Keeping this in view, the court directed the federal government to release election funds worth Rs21 billion to the ECP by April 10 for elections to the assemblies of Punjab and KP.
“The Commission shall, by April 11, file a report in the court stating whether the said funds have been provided and received and if so, whether in full or in part. The report shall be placed before the members of the bench for consideration in chambers.
“If the funds have not been provided or there is a shortfall, as the case may be, the court may make such orders and give such directions as are deemed appropriate to such person or authority as necessary in this regard,” the SC order said.
It directed the ECP to utilise the funds for elections to the Punjab Assembly in the first instance and added that if there was a shortfall in funds for polls in KP later, the ECP “may make an appropriate representation to this court for such consideration and orders as deemed appropriate”.
The court also instructed the Punjab caretaker government, inspector general and chief secretary (security) to provide the electoral body with a security plan by April 10.
“Furthermore, in any case, the Government of Punjab and all officials thereof must, in the discharge of constitutional and legal duties and responsibilities, proactively provide all aid and assistance to the Commission for the holding and conduct of the general election,” the apex court verdict said.
It went on to say that the federal government, in the discharge of its constitutional duties, was bound to provide aid and assistance to the ECP as required by it for holding elections in Punjab and KP.
“Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the federal government must make available all necessary personnel, whether from the Armed Forces, Rangers, Frontier Constabulary and all other forces under the direct, indirect or ultimate command and control of the said Government, as are required by the Commission for security and other purposes related to the general elections.”
In this regard, the federal government should provide a plan to the ECP by April 17, the SC stated.
It warned that if the Centre or the Punjab caretaker government failed to provide aid and assistance to the ECP, the commission could approach the court and an appropriate order would be passed on the matter.
Referring to elections in KP, the SC recalled that the counsel of the KP governor had withdrawn from appearance in court “on account of a certain stand taken by a political party which learned counsel was also representing”.
“The Governor, KP province, therefore, ceased to have representation before the court,” it maintained, pointing out that the matter on elections in KP was not adjudicated upon. “Permission is granted to the petitioners to file such petition and/or seek such relief before such forum as is deemed appropriate.”
The top court also mentioned its March 1 verdict in today’s order. In a 3-2 order last month, the SC had ruled that elections in KP and Punjab should be held within 90 days.
However, the government had disputed the court directions, calling the verdict 4-3 instead after Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah — who were among the four judges who had written additional notes — raised objections on the constitution of the bench as well as the invocation of the apex court’s suo motu jurisdiction by the chief justice.
In its verdict today, the court said: “Respectfully, the position as claimed by the learned Judges in minority is erroneous and not sustainable in law.”
The SC further maintained that the March 29 judgement issued by Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Aminuddin Khan did not have any effect on any observations made in today’s order.
In the 12-page order, the judges had called for the postponement of suo motu matters until amendments were made to Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the country’s top judge’s discretionary powers to form benches.
The SC’s much-anticipated decision on the PTI petition was announced by the top judge in Court Room 1 where coalition leaders, journalists and lawyers were in attendance. Outside the apex court’s building, heavy security was deployed with a large contingent of police guarding the main entrance.
Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar addresses a press conference in Islamabad on Tuesday. — DawnNewsTV
The minister foresaw that the “current political situation and crisis will further aggravate”.
He said ECP lawyers and other stakeholders had argued that the court should first decide on the March 1 verdict — which was “rejected 4-3 […] a full court should have cleared this confusion.”
He said the cabinet would discuss the matter in its meeting today.
Earlier today, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah had said that elections should be held in the country simultaneously, adding that separate polls to provincial assemblies will only create anarchy, chaos and further political crises.
PTI’s Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Barrister Ali Zafar talk to media persons outside SC on Tuesday. — DawnNewsTV
Speaking to the media outside the SC, he said today was a very important day in Pakistan’s political history. “I will call it a watershed moment,” he added.
Qureshi further said that today a clear distinction was made between democratic and constitutional forces and unconstitutional forces.
The PTI leader went on to say that the chief election commissioner was also now free to hold elections. “His hands that were bound are free now … He used to speak of [a lack of] resources and security personnel, but all of that is available now.
“The Supreme Court has freed them of all pressures and told them that it is their constitutional responsibility to hold free, fair and credible elections. They should fulfil their constitutional responsibility now,” he added.
Separately, PTI’s Fawad Chaudhry praised the CJP for the order, calling him a “people’s chief justice”.
“Very few people have the privilege to get the amount of respect that has come towards Justice Bandial and his fellow judges today,” he said.
“It is a good day for the rule of law, and for Pakistan as a federation,” he said, adding that it now fell on the state – and the people – to make sure the judgment was enforced.
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii told Dawn.com that by declaring the ECP decision to delay polls till October illegal, the Supreme Court has “solved only the lesser of the crises it was involved in”.
“The greater crisis is of the court’s own making, and the CJP’s failure to build consensus amongst his colleagues leaves it unresolved. It is this failure to form a full court and exhibit a united front which has allowed for the government to issue the threats it has subtly conveyed over the weekend. These threats will only get louder now that the expected decision has been announced.”
He added that the government has repeatedly attempted to argue that the scheme of the Constitution requires the federal and provincial elections to be held concurrently.
“This is rooted in the government finding this politically expedient rather than any consistent respect for the constitutional rule as their commentary about the Supreme Court bench reflects,” Jaferii said.
“As they are facing a likely defeat due to Imran Khan’s surging popularity; it is likely that they will try their best to delay the implementation of this order through a steady drip of creative excuse-making,” the lawyer added.
Lawyer Basil Nabi Malik said doing the right thing the wrong way did not resolve issues, it only created new ones. “And that is precisely what this decision has done.”
Barrister Rida Hosain said that against all the odds, the Constitution had prevailed in Pakistan today.
“A simple but crucial constitutional command has been unequivocally enforced. The order of the ECP altering the date of the elections to 8 October has been declared unconstitutional and without lawful authority by the Supreme Court.
“The government raised arguments about lack of funds and the security situation in the country to justify the delay in the elections. These arguments were rejected by the Court and along with it the doctrine of necessity remains in the history books where it belongs,” she told Dawn.com.
Hosain said that in a country that had seen persistent interference in the democratic process, it was about time that the process was allowed to continue and flourish.
“This time, the Court has not left it to the ECP and the President to come up with it a date. It has given one: 14 May 2023,” the lawyer added.
Thereafter, the bench was reconstituted with the remaining judges: CJP Bandial, Justice Ahsan and Justice Akhtar.
However, the coalition government — which had been demanding a full court to hear the case — raised reservations on the bench. In a National Assembly meeting yesterday, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif categorically said the ruling coalition had no confidence in the three-member SC bench.
Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar had also called on the top court judge to “get your hours in order”.
Last week, parties in the coalition government issued a joint statement which said that “a complete distrust had been shown in the three-member bench of the SC comprising CJP Bandial, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar”.
“The huddle demands wrapping up [of] the three-member bench’s proceedings regarding the delay in elections to the Punjab Assembly forthwith,” it had said.
It had pointed out that there had been a “clear division in the SC, therefore it should refrain from issuing controversial political decisions”.
Earlier this month, the government also moved the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023 to the National Assembly and Senate. The proposed law aims to deprive the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity. While both houses have passed the bill, it is yet to be approved by the president.
The apex court, had in a 3-2 verdict, ruled on March 1 that elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab — both of which have been under caretaker governments since the provincial assemblies were dissolved in January — should be held within 90 days.
The government, however, had disputed with the court directions, calling the verdict 4-3 instead after Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah — who were among the four judges who had written additional notes in the Feb 23 order — raised objections on the constitution of the bench as well as the invocation of the apex court’s suo motu jurisdiction by the chief justice.
Arguments over this contention were made by Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan during the hearing. However, the CJP brushed aside the 4-3 controversy and said nobody had recused from the nine-judge bench, besides all judges had requested him to reconstitute the bench.
The CJP had also rubbished the concept of order of the day in case of dissenting judgement by asking the AGP to come up with any law requiring the issuance of an order of the court.
In the petition, PTI had sought directions for the federal government to ensure law and order, provisions of funds and security personnel as per the ECP’s need to hold the elections.
It also requested the court to direct the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governor to announce the date for elections to the provincial assembly. Last week, KP Governor Ghulam Ali also proposed Oct 8 as the date for elections in the province. Earlier, he had announced May 28 as the date for polls.
The PTI questioned the ECP’s authority to “amend the Constitution” and asked how it could decide to delay elections to any assembly beyond the period of 90 days from the date of dissolution of the said assembly as mandated by the Constitution.
The petition argued that the ECP was bound to obey and implement the judgments of the Supreme Court and had no power or jurisdiction to overrule or review them.
In its March 1 verdict, the Supreme Court ordered to hold the election to the Punjab Assembly within 90 days and that the date be announced by the president. It also directed the authorities to provide funds and security personnel to ECP for the elections, the petition recalled.
The ECP cannot act in defiance of the Supreme Court’s directions as it has done in this case which was illegal and liable to be set aside, the petition pleaded. By announcing Oct 8 as the date, the ECP has delayed the elections for more than 183 days beyond the 90-day limit as prescribed in the Constitution.
The petition said that if the excuse of unavailability of security personnel was accepted this time, it would set a precedent to delay any future elections.
The petition added that there was no assurance that these factors — financial constraints, security situation and non-availability of security personnel — would improve by Oct 8.
The “so-called excuse” would mean the Constitution could be held in abeyance every time elections were due, the petitioners feared adding that in the past similar situations have persisted, but elections were held despite them.
These situations can’t be used as excuses to “subvert” the Constitution and deny people their right to elect representatives.
“Not holding elections in case of threats by terrorists will amount to giving in to the threats, which is in fact the aim of all terrorist activities,” the petition explained.
SC fixes May 14 as new Punjab poll date after ruling ECP’s order to delay elections ‘unconstitutional’
Three-member bench headed by CJP Bandial announces verdict, directs federal govt to issue funds for polls.Haseeb Bhatti
April 4, 2023
The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone polls to the Punjab Assembly till Oct 8 was “unconstitutional” and fixed May 14 as the date for polls in the province.
“The impugned order dated 22.03.2023 made by the Election Commission of Pakistan is declared to be unconstitutional, without lawful authority or jurisdiction, void ab-initio, of no legal effect and is hereby quashed,” the ruling said. “Neither the Constitution nor the law empowers the Commission to extend the date of elections beyond the 90 days period as provided in Article 224(2) of the Constitution.”
The ECP had on March 22 announced that the elections in Punjab would be held on October 8. The date was earlier set on April 30, in consultation with the president.
The reserved verdict was issued today by a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ijazul Ahsan.
In the written verdict, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, the top court restored the election schedule issued by the ECP on March 8 with certain modifications.
The changes made by the court in the election programme are:
- The last date for filing appeals against decision of the returning officer rejecting/accepting the nomination papers is April 10
- The last date for deciding on appeals by the Appellate Tribunal is April 17
- The revised list of candidates will be published on April 18
- April 19 will be the last date for the withdrawal of candidature and publication of the revised list of candidates
- Electoral symbols will be allotted to contesting candidates on April 20
- Polling will be held on May 14
Keeping this in view, the court directed the federal government to release election funds worth Rs21 billion to the ECP by April 10 for elections to the assemblies of Punjab and KP.
“The Commission shall, by April 11, file a report in the court stating whether the said funds have been provided and received and if so, whether in full or in part. The report shall be placed before the members of the bench for consideration in chambers.
“If the funds have not been provided or there is a shortfall, as the case may be, the court may make such orders and give such directions as are deemed appropriate to such person or authority as necessary in this regard,” the SC order said.
It directed the ECP to utilise the funds for elections to the Punjab Assembly in the first instance and added that if there was a shortfall in funds for polls in KP later, the ECP “may make an appropriate representation to this court for such consideration and orders as deemed appropriate”.
The court also instructed the Punjab caretaker government, inspector general and chief secretary (security) to provide the electoral body with a security plan by April 10.
“Furthermore, in any case, the Government of Punjab and all officials thereof must, in the discharge of constitutional and legal duties and responsibilities, proactively provide all aid and assistance to the Commission for the holding and conduct of the general election,” the apex court verdict said.
It went on to say that the federal government, in the discharge of its constitutional duties, was bound to provide aid and assistance to the ECP as required by it for holding elections in Punjab and KP.
“Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the federal government must make available all necessary personnel, whether from the Armed Forces, Rangers, Frontier Constabulary and all other forces under the direct, indirect or ultimate command and control of the said Government, as are required by the Commission for security and other purposes related to the general elections.”
In this regard, the federal government should provide a plan to the ECP by April 17, the SC stated.
It warned that if the Centre or the Punjab caretaker government failed to provide aid and assistance to the ECP, the commission could approach the court and an appropriate order would be passed on the matter.
Referring to elections in KP, the SC recalled that the counsel of the KP governor had withdrawn from appearance in court “on account of a certain stand taken by a political party which learned counsel was also representing”.
“The Governor, KP province, therefore, ceased to have representation before the court,” it maintained, pointing out that the matter on elections in KP was not adjudicated upon. “Permission is granted to the petitioners to file such petition and/or seek such relief before such forum as is deemed appropriate.”
The top court also mentioned its March 1 verdict in today’s order. In a 3-2 order last month, the SC had ruled that elections in KP and Punjab should be held within 90 days.
However, the government had disputed the court directions, calling the verdict 4-3 instead after Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah — who were among the four judges who had written additional notes — raised objections on the constitution of the bench as well as the invocation of the apex court’s suo motu jurisdiction by the chief justice.
In its verdict today, the court said: “Respectfully, the position as claimed by the learned Judges in minority is erroneous and not sustainable in law.”
The SC further maintained that the March 29 judgement issued by Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Aminuddin Khan did not have any effect on any observations made in today’s order.
In the 12-page order, the judges had called for the postponement of suo motu matters until amendments were made to Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the country’s top judge’s discretionary powers to form benches.
The SC’s much-anticipated decision on the PTI petition was announced by the top judge in Court Room 1 where coalition leaders, journalists and lawyers were in attendance. Outside the apex court’s building, heavy security was deployed with a large contingent of police guarding the main entrance.
Political crisis will further aggravate: law minister
In a press conference shortly after the verdict was announced, Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar lamented the ruling and said the SC should have made a decision with “collective wisdom”. “The full court should have heard the case,” he added.
Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar addresses a press conference in Islamabad on Tuesday. — DawnNewsTV
The minister foresaw that the “current political situation and crisis will further aggravate”.
He said ECP lawyers and other stakeholders had argued that the court should first decide on the March 1 verdict — which was “rejected 4-3 […] a full court should have cleared this confusion.”
He said the cabinet would discuss the matter in its meeting today.
Earlier today, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah had said that elections should be held in the country simultaneously, adding that separate polls to provincial assemblies will only create anarchy, chaos and further political crises.
PTI calls verdict a ‘watershed moment’
Meanwhile, PTI vice-chairperson Shah Mahmood Qureshi congratulated the nation and said: “Today, the Supreme Court has buried the doctrine of necessity, restored the sanctity of the Constitution and buried all those conspiratorial forces that were creating hurdles in the way of democracy and a democratic and constitutional system in this country.”
PTI’s Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Barrister Ali Zafar talk to media persons outside SC on Tuesday. — DawnNewsTV
Speaking to the media outside the SC, he said today was a very important day in Pakistan’s political history. “I will call it a watershed moment,” he added.
Qureshi further said that today a clear distinction was made between democratic and constitutional forces and unconstitutional forces.
The PTI leader went on to say that the chief election commissioner was also now free to hold elections. “His hands that were bound are free now … He used to speak of [a lack of] resources and security personnel, but all of that is available now.
“The Supreme Court has freed them of all pressures and told them that it is their constitutional responsibility to hold free, fair and credible elections. They should fulfil their constitutional responsibility now,” he added.
Separately, PTI’s Fawad Chaudhry praised the CJP for the order, calling him a “people’s chief justice”.
“Very few people have the privilege to get the amount of respect that has come towards Justice Bandial and his fellow judges today,” he said.
‘SC has solved the lesser of the crises it is in’
Speaking to Dawn.com, legal expert Barrister Asad Rahim said that despite extraordinary pressure, the SC had done its duty to the law and Constitution, and singlehandedly kept democracy alive.“It is a good day for the rule of law, and for Pakistan as a federation,” he said, adding that it now fell on the state – and the people – to make sure the judgment was enforced.
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii told Dawn.com that by declaring the ECP decision to delay polls till October illegal, the Supreme Court has “solved only the lesser of the crises it was involved in”.
“The greater crisis is of the court’s own making, and the CJP’s failure to build consensus amongst his colleagues leaves it unresolved. It is this failure to form a full court and exhibit a united front which has allowed for the government to issue the threats it has subtly conveyed over the weekend. These threats will only get louder now that the expected decision has been announced.”
He added that the government has repeatedly attempted to argue that the scheme of the Constitution requires the federal and provincial elections to be held concurrently.
“This is rooted in the government finding this politically expedient rather than any consistent respect for the constitutional rule as their commentary about the Supreme Court bench reflects,” Jaferii said.
“As they are facing a likely defeat due to Imran Khan’s surging popularity; it is likely that they will try their best to delay the implementation of this order through a steady drip of creative excuse-making,” the lawyer added.
Lawyer Basil Nabi Malik said doing the right thing the wrong way did not resolve issues, it only created new ones. “And that is precisely what this decision has done.”
Barrister Rida Hosain said that against all the odds, the Constitution had prevailed in Pakistan today.
“A simple but crucial constitutional command has been unequivocally enforced. The order of the ECP altering the date of the elections to 8 October has been declared unconstitutional and without lawful authority by the Supreme Court.
“The government raised arguments about lack of funds and the security situation in the country to justify the delay in the elections. These arguments were rejected by the Court and along with it the doctrine of necessity remains in the history books where it belongs,” she told Dawn.com.
Hosain said that in a country that had seen persistent interference in the democratic process, it was about time that the process was allowed to continue and flourish.
“This time, the Court has not left it to the ECP and the President to come up with it a date. It has given one: 14 May 2023,” the lawyer added.
Diminished bench
The hearings in the case, which lasted over a week, witnessed high drama after two judges of the original five-member bench — Justices Aminuddin Khan and Jamal Khan Mandokhail — recused themselves from hearing the case, laying bare the cracks within the SC.Thereafter, the bench was reconstituted with the remaining judges: CJP Bandial, Justice Ahsan and Justice Akhtar.
However, the coalition government — which had been demanding a full court to hear the case — raised reservations on the bench. In a National Assembly meeting yesterday, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif categorically said the ruling coalition had no confidence in the three-member SC bench.
Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar had also called on the top court judge to “get your hours in order”.
Last week, parties in the coalition government issued a joint statement which said that “a complete distrust had been shown in the three-member bench of the SC comprising CJP Bandial, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar”.
“The huddle demands wrapping up [of] the three-member bench’s proceedings regarding the delay in elections to the Punjab Assembly forthwith,” it had said.
It had pointed out that there had been a “clear division in the SC, therefore it should refrain from issuing controversial political decisions”.
Earlier this month, the government also moved the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023 to the National Assembly and Senate. The proposed law aims to deprive the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity. While both houses have passed the bill, it is yet to be approved by the president.
Debate over election date order
During the proceedings, a debate was also held on the SC’s March 1 verdict regarding elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab.The apex court, had in a 3-2 verdict, ruled on March 1 that elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab — both of which have been under caretaker governments since the provincial assemblies were dissolved in January — should be held within 90 days.
The government, however, had disputed with the court directions, calling the verdict 4-3 instead after Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah — who were among the four judges who had written additional notes in the Feb 23 order — raised objections on the constitution of the bench as well as the invocation of the apex court’s suo motu jurisdiction by the chief justice.
Arguments over this contention were made by Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan during the hearing. However, the CJP brushed aside the 4-3 controversy and said nobody had recused from the nine-judge bench, besides all judges had requested him to reconstitute the bench.
The CJP had also rubbished the concept of order of the day in case of dissenting judgement by asking the AGP to come up with any law requiring the issuance of an order of the court.
PTI petition
PTI’s petition, moved by party’s Secretary General Asad Umar, former Punjab Assembly speaker Mohammad Sibtain Khan, former Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Speaker Mushtaq Ahmad Ghani and ex-lawmakers of Punjab Abdul Rehman and Mian Mahmoodur Rashid, pleaded that the ECP’s decision violated the Constitution and tantamount to amending and subverting it.In the petition, PTI had sought directions for the federal government to ensure law and order, provisions of funds and security personnel as per the ECP’s need to hold the elections.
It also requested the court to direct the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governor to announce the date for elections to the provincial assembly. Last week, KP Governor Ghulam Ali also proposed Oct 8 as the date for elections in the province. Earlier, he had announced May 28 as the date for polls.
The PTI questioned the ECP’s authority to “amend the Constitution” and asked how it could decide to delay elections to any assembly beyond the period of 90 days from the date of dissolution of the said assembly as mandated by the Constitution.
The petition argued that the ECP was bound to obey and implement the judgments of the Supreme Court and had no power or jurisdiction to overrule or review them.
In its March 1 verdict, the Supreme Court ordered to hold the election to the Punjab Assembly within 90 days and that the date be announced by the president. It also directed the authorities to provide funds and security personnel to ECP for the elections, the petition recalled.
The ECP cannot act in defiance of the Supreme Court’s directions as it has done in this case which was illegal and liable to be set aside, the petition pleaded. By announcing Oct 8 as the date, the ECP has delayed the elections for more than 183 days beyond the 90-day limit as prescribed in the Constitution.
The petition said that if the excuse of unavailability of security personnel was accepted this time, it would set a precedent to delay any future elections.
The petition added that there was no assurance that these factors — financial constraints, security situation and non-availability of security personnel — would improve by Oct 8.
The “so-called excuse” would mean the Constitution could be held in abeyance every time elections were due, the petitioners feared adding that in the past similar situations have persisted, but elections were held despite them.
These situations can’t be used as excuses to “subvert” the Constitution and deny people their right to elect representatives.
“Not holding elections in case of threats by terrorists will amount to giving in to the threats, which is in fact the aim of all terrorist activities,” the petition explained.
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 103,030
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
.,.,
Admitting the Supreme Court (SC) verdict in the Punjab polls delay case as "legally correct", the country's legal fraternity debated the consequences of the order on Tuesday.
Earlier, a three-member SC bench hearing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) petition challenging the delay in Punjab polls nullified the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision on Tuesday, declaring it "unconstitutional".
Lawyer Waqar Mir while responding to activist Ammar Ali Jan in a tweet said that "legally this is absolutely the correct decision. However, the road we have taken to arrive at this verdict and the divisions embraced or allowed will likely haunt us for a while".
Prominent lawyer and analyst Muhammad Ahmad Pansota responded to his tweet saying "as long as the decision is legally correct, we can ignore the divisions".
"However," he added, "I still feel what you refer to as division is dissent in the SC. I am glad that all seventeen judges think differently."
To this, Mir responded saying, "the 'division' was not a reference to judicial dissent which I have long been an advocate of. We do need more dissent.
'Legally correct': lawyers weigh in on SC Punjab polls verdict
Legal community debates 'necessity', anticipates another constitutional crisisAdmitting the Supreme Court (SC) verdict in the Punjab polls delay case as "legally correct", the country's legal fraternity debated the consequences of the order on Tuesday.
Earlier, a three-member SC bench hearing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) petition challenging the delay in Punjab polls nullified the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision on Tuesday, declaring it "unconstitutional".
Lawyer Waqar Mir while responding to activist Ammar Ali Jan in a tweet said that "legally this is absolutely the correct decision. However, the road we have taken to arrive at this verdict and the divisions embraced or allowed will likely haunt us for a while".
Prominent lawyer and analyst Muhammad Ahmad Pansota responded to his tweet saying "as long as the decision is legally correct, we can ignore the divisions".
"However," he added, "I still feel what you refer to as division is dissent in the SC. I am glad that all seventeen judges think differently."
To this, Mir responded saying, "the 'division' was not a reference to judicial dissent which I have long been an advocate of. We do need more dissent.
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 103,030
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
.,.,
April 5, 2023
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) issued a revised schedule for Punjab Assembly polls on Wednesday, in line with the Supreme Court’s (SC) directives that the elections be held on May 14 instead of the previously notified date of October 8.
The revised schedule was issued in a notification, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, citing the apex court’s order of the previous day in a petition filed by the PTI against the ECP’s decision to delay the Punjab Assembly elections from the originally decided date of April 30 to October 8.
Elections to the Punjab Assembly have been due since January this year when the house was dissolved. In early March, the ECP had proposed that the elections be held between April 30 and May 7 and subsequently, President Arif Alvi accepted the commission’s recommendations by setting April 30 as the date for the polls.
The date was officially notified by the electoral watchdog on March 8, but it was later deferred to October 8 in another notification issued by the ECP on March 22.
In the latest notification issued today, the commission said it was recalling its March 22 notification and partially modifying the March 8 notification.
Under the revised schedule, the last date for the filing of appeals against the decisions of the returning officer rejecting or accepting the candidates’ nomination papers has been set as April 10.
The appellate tribunal can decide these appeals by April 17 and a revised list of candidates has to be issued by April 18.
The last date for the withdrawal of candidature and the publication of another revised list of candidates has been set as April 19, following which symbols have to be assigned to candidates by April 20.
The elections, in line with the SC’s directives, are to be held on May 14.
ECP issues revised schedule for Punjab polls, notifies May 14 as new election date
Irfan SadozaiApril 5, 2023
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) issued a revised schedule for Punjab Assembly polls on Wednesday, in line with the Supreme Court’s (SC) directives that the elections be held on May 14 instead of the previously notified date of October 8.
The revised schedule was issued in a notification, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, citing the apex court’s order of the previous day in a petition filed by the PTI against the ECP’s decision to delay the Punjab Assembly elections from the originally decided date of April 30 to October 8.
Elections to the Punjab Assembly have been due since January this year when the house was dissolved. In early March, the ECP had proposed that the elections be held between April 30 and May 7 and subsequently, President Arif Alvi accepted the commission’s recommendations by setting April 30 as the date for the polls.
The date was officially notified by the electoral watchdog on March 8, but it was later deferred to October 8 in another notification issued by the ECP on March 22.
In the latest notification issued today, the commission said it was recalling its March 22 notification and partially modifying the March 8 notification.
Under the revised schedule, the last date for the filing of appeals against the decisions of the returning officer rejecting or accepting the candidates’ nomination papers has been set as April 10.
The appellate tribunal can decide these appeals by April 17 and a revised list of candidates has to be issued by April 18.
The last date for the withdrawal of candidature and the publication of another revised list of candidates has been set as April 19, following which symbols have to be assigned to candidates by April 20.
The elections, in line with the SC’s directives, are to be held on May 14.
El Sidd
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 67,597
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Looks like CJP and Supreme court don't consider KPK to be part of Pakistan. Maybe Talibans will announce the election schedule there
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 103,030
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
.,.,.,
April 6, 2023
The National Assembly on Thursday passed a resolution rejecting the decision of a three-member bench of the Supreme Court in the Punjab elections delay case.
On April 4, the apex court quashed the ECP’s decision to delay the elections in the province from April 30 to October 8, ruling the move was “unconstitutional, without lawful authority or jurisdiction, void ab-initio, [and] of no legal effect”.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister described the decision, in a cabinet meeting, as a “mockery of the Constitution and law” and said it could not be implemented.
That viewpoint reverberated in the National Assembly today, which not only passed a resolution against the Supreme Court’s April 4 ruling, but also urged the prime minister not to abide by it.
The resolution was moved by Balochistan Awami Party legislator Khalid Magsi, who read it out on the floor of the house.
“This house rejects the minority decision of the three-member bench and binds the prime minister and the cabinet not to implement the unconstitutional and unlawful decision,” Magsi said as he read out the resolution.
The resolution.
The resolution referred to an earlier one passed in the NA on March 28. It stated stated that the previous resolution had demanded the implementation of the “majority decision taken by four SC judges” and that the top court should refrain from meddling in the country’s political and administrative affairs.
“But it was not accepted,” the resolution said, lamenting that the “stance of no political party barring one was heard”. “Instead, parliament’s clear resolution and the majority decision of the four judges were completely ignored and the minority opinion of the three-member bench was imposed.”
The resolution said this was in violation of the apex court’s traditions, precedents and procedures.
“Parliament rejects the minority decision of the three-member bench and in accordance with the Constitution and law, declares that the decision of the majority bench is in force”.
The resolution said the house also endorsed the verdict issued by the Justice Qazi Faez Isa-led bench regarding the postponement of cases filed under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution until amendments were made to Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the CJP’s discretionary powers to form benches.
Referring to the SC registrar’s circular disregarding the order, the resolution said that it viewed the move “to stop the implementation of this decision through an executive circular” with deep concern.
Commenting on the larger SC bench’s decision to override Justice Isa’s order, the resolution said the House had reservations over the fixing of this matter before a “controversial bench” for hearing in haste and “the issuance of an immediate ruling in it within a few minutes”.
The resolution said such an act was also against the traditions and precedents of the SC and thus, “unacceptable”.
The prime minister briefly attended the proceedings and left shortly after the resolution was passed.
Before the resolution was brought, lawmakers took turns criticising the Supreme Court and PTI Chairman Imran Khan.
PPP MNA and Federal Minister for Benazir Income Support Programme, Shazia Marri, said the House honours the courts but they should also understand the “trichotomy of power, they should understand that every institution needs to be paid a certain amount of respect “.
She said the Constitution defines the role of all the institutions that function in the country, and it (the Constitution) has to be upheld — “not the ego of one person”.
“There has to be a separation between the executive and the judiciary,” she added. “We also have to accept that the executive should not interfere with the judiciary, which I accept that I should not interfere in the matters concerning lordships, the same way lordship should not interfere with executive matters,” she added.
NA passes resolution rejecting SC’s Punjab elections ruling, urges PM to not obey it
Dawn.comApril 6, 2023
The National Assembly on Thursday passed a resolution rejecting the decision of a three-member bench of the Supreme Court in the Punjab elections delay case.
On April 4, the apex court quashed the ECP’s decision to delay the elections in the province from April 30 to October 8, ruling the move was “unconstitutional, without lawful authority or jurisdiction, void ab-initio, [and] of no legal effect”.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister described the decision, in a cabinet meeting, as a “mockery of the Constitution and law” and said it could not be implemented.
That viewpoint reverberated in the National Assembly today, which not only passed a resolution against the Supreme Court’s April 4 ruling, but also urged the prime minister not to abide by it.
The resolution was moved by Balochistan Awami Party legislator Khalid Magsi, who read it out on the floor of the house.
“This house rejects the minority decision of the three-member bench and binds the prime minister and the cabinet not to implement the unconstitutional and unlawful decision,” Magsi said as he read out the resolution.
The resolution.
The resolution referred to an earlier one passed in the NA on March 28. It stated stated that the previous resolution had demanded the implementation of the “majority decision taken by four SC judges” and that the top court should refrain from meddling in the country’s political and administrative affairs.
“But it was not accepted,” the resolution said, lamenting that the “stance of no political party barring one was heard”. “Instead, parliament’s clear resolution and the majority decision of the four judges were completely ignored and the minority opinion of the three-member bench was imposed.”
The resolution said this was in violation of the apex court’s traditions, precedents and procedures.
“Parliament rejects the minority decision of the three-member bench and in accordance with the Constitution and law, declares that the decision of the majority bench is in force”.
The resolution said the house also endorsed the verdict issued by the Justice Qazi Faez Isa-led bench regarding the postponement of cases filed under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution until amendments were made to Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the CJP’s discretionary powers to form benches.
Referring to the SC registrar’s circular disregarding the order, the resolution said that it viewed the move “to stop the implementation of this decision through an executive circular” with deep concern.
Commenting on the larger SC bench’s decision to override Justice Isa’s order, the resolution said the House had reservations over the fixing of this matter before a “controversial bench” for hearing in haste and “the issuance of an immediate ruling in it within a few minutes”.
The resolution said such an act was also against the traditions and precedents of the SC and thus, “unacceptable”.
The prime minister briefly attended the proceedings and left shortly after the resolution was passed.
Before the resolution was brought, lawmakers took turns criticising the Supreme Court and PTI Chairman Imran Khan.
PPP MNA and Federal Minister for Benazir Income Support Programme, Shazia Marri, said the House honours the courts but they should also understand the “trichotomy of power, they should understand that every institution needs to be paid a certain amount of respect “.
She said the Constitution defines the role of all the institutions that function in the country, and it (the Constitution) has to be upheld — “not the ego of one person”.
“There has to be a separation between the executive and the judiciary,” she added. “We also have to accept that the executive should not interfere with the judiciary, which I accept that I should not interfere in the matters concerning lordships, the same way lordship should not interfere with executive matters,” she added.
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 103,030
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
.,,..
April 7, 2023
Justice Athar Minallah
In yet another twist to holding provincial elections in the country, Justice Athar Minallah of the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday released his detailed note on the suo motu notice proceedings on the delay in holding polls in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, saying that the case was dismissed 4-3.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial on February 22 took suo motu notice of the polls in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, saying that there appeared to be a “lack of clarity” on the matter.
Justice Bandial also constituted a nine-member bench — comprising himself, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Minallah — to hear the case.
The CJP on February 27, however, split the larger bench into a five-member bench. The SC also issued a written order, which was dictated in the open court on Feb 23 when Justice Jamal Mandokhail objected to the initiation of the proceedings under Article 184(3).
Signed by nine judges, the written order of the bench stated that keeping in view the Feb 23 order, the additional notes attached by four judges, the CJP’s direction to add questions raised by Justice Shah, Justice Afridi, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Minallah, as well as discussions/deliberations made in the anteroom of the apex court, the matter was referred back to the top judge.
In response, the CJP reconstituted the bench comprising himself, Justice Shah, Justice Akhtar, Justice Mandokhail, and Justice Mazhar.
On March 1, the SC, in a 3-2 verdict, directed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to consult with President Arif Alvi for polls in Punjab and Governor Ghulam Ali for elections in KP.
The majority judgement, given by CJP Bandial, Justice Akhtar, and Justice Mazhar, however, allowed the ECP to propose a poll date that deviates from the 90-day deadline by the “barest minimum”, in case of any practical difficulty.
Justice Mandokhail and Justice Shah — who were among the four judges who had written additional notes in the Feb 23 order — dissented with the ruling. In a joint dissent note, the two top court judges said that the suo motu proceedings initiated by the CJP were “wholly unjustified”, besides being initiated with “undue haste”.
They also noted that the reconstitution of the bench was “simply an administrative act to facilitate the further hearing of the case by the remaining five members of the bench and could not nullify or brush aside the judicial decisions given by the two Hon’ble Judges in this case, which have to be counted when the matter is finally concluded.”
They argued that Justice Ahsan and Justice Naqvi had not been removed from the bench but had voluntarily recused themselves. “Thus, their short orders are very much part of the case, therefore, the administrative order of reconstitution of the bench by the Hon’ble Chief Justice cannot brush aside the judicial decisions of the two Hon’ble Judges who had decided the matter when the case was heard by a nine-member bench.”
They further said that the failure to count the decisions of Justice Afridi and Justice Minallah “would amount to excluding them from the bench without their consent, which is not permissible under the law and not within the powers of the Hon’ble Chief Justice”.
“Therefore, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the present suo motu proceedings and the connected constitution petitions is the order of the court by a majority of 4 to 3 of the seven-member bench.”
He has also mentioned the Lahore High Court’s Feb 10 verdict where it ordered the ECP to immediately announce the date for elections in Punjab.
Justice Minallah observed that petitions were filed seeking contempt of court proceedings to reinforce the LHC’s order but that the Supreme Court had “no reason to doubt the ability and competence” of the former.
He said that the written order of the hearing held on Feb 23 included a separate note from Justice Yahya Afridi, who had dismissed the petitions on the ground of maintainability.
“The reasoning recorded in the short order was persuasive and I had no hesitation in concurring with the decision regarding dismissal of the petitions. I had reiterated my decision by recording my note in the order dated 24.02.2023.
“I have had the privilege of reading the detailed reasoning recorded by my learned brothers, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJs and I agree with their opinion, particularly regarding the final outcome of the petitions and the suo motu assumption of jurisdiction by a majority of 4 to 3 because this was the understanding in the meeting held in the anteroom on 27.02.2023. It is noted that I had not recused nor had any reason to dissociate myself,” he said.
Regarding Article 184(3) of the Constitution (matters of public importance), the judge said that invocation of jurisdiction under the article and the exercise of discretion relating to the constitution of benches and fixation of cases were crucial in the context of preserving public trust and confidence.
“The process of constitution of benches and allocation of cases must be transparent, fair and impartial. The court must always show extreme restraint in matters which involve the political stakeholders […] The court must not allow any stakeholder to use its forum for advancing its political strategy or gaining advantage over other competitors. It is the duty of the court to ensure that political stakeholders are not encouraged to bring their disputes to the courts for judicial settlement by bypassing the institutions and forums created under the Constitution,” he said.
He further said that doing so weakens Parliament and the forums meant for political dialogue while also inflicting harm on the judicial branch of the state by “prejudicing public trust in its independence and impartiality”.
“It also encourages the political stakeholders to shun the democratic values of tolerance, dialogue and settlement through political means. This court owes a duty to more than fifty thousand litigants whose cases on our docket are awaiting to be heard and decided. They ought to be given priority over the political stakeholders who are under an obligation to resolve their disputes in the political forums through democratic means. This court has a duty to preserve public trust and confidence and not to appear politically partisan. This is what the Constitution contemplates,” he said.
Raising objection on the suo motu notice, the justice said that the “premature and pre-emptive proceedings before this court at this stage is likely to delay the enforcement” of the LHC judgement.
He mentioned the notes penned by three other Supreme Court justices who had also dismissed the petition on the grounds that the matter was pending before two high courts.
He noted that the “manner and mode in which these proceedings were initiated have unnecessarily exposed the court to political controversies” and “invited objections from political stakeholders in an already polarised political environment”.
“The court, by proceeding in a premature matter, will be stepping into already murky waters of the domain of politics. It is likely to erode public confidence. The assumption of suo motu jurisdiction in itself may raise concerns in the mind of an informed outside observer.”
He further said that there was another crucial aspect that was being ignored: the conduct of political stakeholders.
“The political climate in the country is so toxic that it is inconceivable that political parties will even agree to having a dialogue, let alone arriving at a consensus,” he said.
He further said that the dissolution of the provincial assemblies, as part of a political strategy, raised questions.
“Is such conduct in consonance with the scheme of constitutional democracy? Is it not in itself a violation of the Constitution? Should this court allow its forum to be exploited for advancing political strategies or appear to be encouraging undemocratic conduct? Should this court not take notice of forum shopping by political stakeholders by invoking the jurisdictions of high courts and this court simultaneously?
“This court cannot and must not appear or be seen as advancing the political strategies of political stakeholders. The public trust will be eroded in the independence and impartiality of the court if it appears or is seen to encourage undemocratic norms and values.”
He further said that the conduct of the stakeholders has created unprecedented political instability by resorting to conduct “that is devoid of the democratic values of tolerance, dialogue and debate”.
“The conduct of the stakeholders does not entitle them to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution lest it is seen or appears to facilitate or promote undemocratic values and strategies.”
He went on to say that it was “ironic and unimaginable for political stakeholders to involve the court in resolving political disputes” which should have been settled in forums created for this very purpose under the Constitution.
“It is also alarming that the conduct of the political stakeholders and their political strategies would create unprecedented political turmoil and instability in the country. Political stability is a precondition for economic progress and prosperity of the people.
“The power struggle between the political stakeholders is undermining the welfare and economic conditions of the people of this country. The people of Pakistan have been made to suffer for a long time by depriving them of their fundamental rights. The long spells of undemocratic regimes validated by this court have caused irretrievable loss to the country and its people.
“The institutions which represent the will of the people were not allowed to take roots. Even today, 75 years after the creation of Pakistan, the institutions remain weak. The country is on the brink of a political and Constitutional crisis and it is high time that all those responsible take a step back and resort to some introspection. All the institutions, including this court, need to set aside their egos and strive towards fulfilling their Constitutional obligations,” Justice Minallah wrote.
Regarding the judiciary, he said it was obvious that “we may not have learnt any lessons from our bleak history”.
“We cannot erase the judgments from the law reports but at least endeavour to restore public trust and confidence so that the past is forgotten to some extent. When politicians do not approach the appropriate forums and bring their disputes to the courts, the former may win or lose the case, but inevitably the court is the loser,” he said.
Elections suo motu: Justice Minallah agrees with judges Mandokhail, Shah, says case was dismissed 4-3
Haseeb BhattiApril 7, 2023
Justice Athar Minallah
In yet another twist to holding provincial elections in the country, Justice Athar Minallah of the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday released his detailed note on the suo motu notice proceedings on the delay in holding polls in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, saying that the case was dismissed 4-3.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial on February 22 took suo motu notice of the polls in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, saying that there appeared to be a “lack of clarity” on the matter.
Justice Bandial also constituted a nine-member bench — comprising himself, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Minallah — to hear the case.
The CJP on February 27, however, split the larger bench into a five-member bench. The SC also issued a written order, which was dictated in the open court on Feb 23 when Justice Jamal Mandokhail objected to the initiation of the proceedings under Article 184(3).
Signed by nine judges, the written order of the bench stated that keeping in view the Feb 23 order, the additional notes attached by four judges, the CJP’s direction to add questions raised by Justice Shah, Justice Afridi, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Minallah, as well as discussions/deliberations made in the anteroom of the apex court, the matter was referred back to the top judge.
In response, the CJP reconstituted the bench comprising himself, Justice Shah, Justice Akhtar, Justice Mandokhail, and Justice Mazhar.
On March 1, the SC, in a 3-2 verdict, directed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to consult with President Arif Alvi for polls in Punjab and Governor Ghulam Ali for elections in KP.
The majority judgement, given by CJP Bandial, Justice Akhtar, and Justice Mazhar, however, allowed the ECP to propose a poll date that deviates from the 90-day deadline by the “barest minimum”, in case of any practical difficulty.
Justice Mandokhail and Justice Shah — who were among the four judges who had written additional notes in the Feb 23 order — dissented with the ruling. In a joint dissent note, the two top court judges said that the suo motu proceedings initiated by the CJP were “wholly unjustified”, besides being initiated with “undue haste”.
They also noted that the reconstitution of the bench was “simply an administrative act to facilitate the further hearing of the case by the remaining five members of the bench and could not nullify or brush aside the judicial decisions given by the two Hon’ble Judges in this case, which have to be counted when the matter is finally concluded.”
They argued that Justice Ahsan and Justice Naqvi had not been removed from the bench but had voluntarily recused themselves. “Thus, their short orders are very much part of the case, therefore, the administrative order of reconstitution of the bench by the Hon’ble Chief Justice cannot brush aside the judicial decisions of the two Hon’ble Judges who had decided the matter when the case was heard by a nine-member bench.”
They further said that the failure to count the decisions of Justice Afridi and Justice Minallah “would amount to excluding them from the bench without their consent, which is not permissible under the law and not within the powers of the Hon’ble Chief Justice”.
“Therefore, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the present suo motu proceedings and the connected constitution petitions is the order of the court by a majority of 4 to 3 of the seven-member bench.”
Justice Minallah’s detailed note
In his 25 page-long note, Justice Minallah mentioned the various case proceedings that took place on the matter since the assemblies were dissolved in January.He has also mentioned the Lahore High Court’s Feb 10 verdict where it ordered the ECP to immediately announce the date for elections in Punjab.
Justice Minallah observed that petitions were filed seeking contempt of court proceedings to reinforce the LHC’s order but that the Supreme Court had “no reason to doubt the ability and competence” of the former.
He said that the written order of the hearing held on Feb 23 included a separate note from Justice Yahya Afridi, who had dismissed the petitions on the ground of maintainability.
“The reasoning recorded in the short order was persuasive and I had no hesitation in concurring with the decision regarding dismissal of the petitions. I had reiterated my decision by recording my note in the order dated 24.02.2023.
“I have had the privilege of reading the detailed reasoning recorded by my learned brothers, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJs and I agree with their opinion, particularly regarding the final outcome of the petitions and the suo motu assumption of jurisdiction by a majority of 4 to 3 because this was the understanding in the meeting held in the anteroom on 27.02.2023. It is noted that I had not recused nor had any reason to dissociate myself,” he said.
Regarding Article 184(3) of the Constitution (matters of public importance), the judge said that invocation of jurisdiction under the article and the exercise of discretion relating to the constitution of benches and fixation of cases were crucial in the context of preserving public trust and confidence.
“The process of constitution of benches and allocation of cases must be transparent, fair and impartial. The court must always show extreme restraint in matters which involve the political stakeholders […] The court must not allow any stakeholder to use its forum for advancing its political strategy or gaining advantage over other competitors. It is the duty of the court to ensure that political stakeholders are not encouraged to bring their disputes to the courts for judicial settlement by bypassing the institutions and forums created under the Constitution,” he said.
He further said that doing so weakens Parliament and the forums meant for political dialogue while also inflicting harm on the judicial branch of the state by “prejudicing public trust in its independence and impartiality”.
“It also encourages the political stakeholders to shun the democratic values of tolerance, dialogue and settlement through political means. This court owes a duty to more than fifty thousand litigants whose cases on our docket are awaiting to be heard and decided. They ought to be given priority over the political stakeholders who are under an obligation to resolve their disputes in the political forums through democratic means. This court has a duty to preserve public trust and confidence and not to appear politically partisan. This is what the Constitution contemplates,” he said.
Raising objection on the suo motu notice, the justice said that the “premature and pre-emptive proceedings before this court at this stage is likely to delay the enforcement” of the LHC judgement.
He mentioned the notes penned by three other Supreme Court justices who had also dismissed the petition on the grounds that the matter was pending before two high courts.
He noted that the “manner and mode in which these proceedings were initiated have unnecessarily exposed the court to political controversies” and “invited objections from political stakeholders in an already polarised political environment”.
“The court, by proceeding in a premature matter, will be stepping into already murky waters of the domain of politics. It is likely to erode public confidence. The assumption of suo motu jurisdiction in itself may raise concerns in the mind of an informed outside observer.”
He further said that there was another crucial aspect that was being ignored: the conduct of political stakeholders.
“The political climate in the country is so toxic that it is inconceivable that political parties will even agree to having a dialogue, let alone arriving at a consensus,” he said.
He further said that the dissolution of the provincial assemblies, as part of a political strategy, raised questions.
“Is such conduct in consonance with the scheme of constitutional democracy? Is it not in itself a violation of the Constitution? Should this court allow its forum to be exploited for advancing political strategies or appear to be encouraging undemocratic conduct? Should this court not take notice of forum shopping by political stakeholders by invoking the jurisdictions of high courts and this court simultaneously?
“This court cannot and must not appear or be seen as advancing the political strategies of political stakeholders. The public trust will be eroded in the independence and impartiality of the court if it appears or is seen to encourage undemocratic norms and values.”
He further said that the conduct of the stakeholders has created unprecedented political instability by resorting to conduct “that is devoid of the democratic values of tolerance, dialogue and debate”.
“The conduct of the stakeholders does not entitle them to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution lest it is seen or appears to facilitate or promote undemocratic values and strategies.”
He went on to say that it was “ironic and unimaginable for political stakeholders to involve the court in resolving political disputes” which should have been settled in forums created for this very purpose under the Constitution.
“It is also alarming that the conduct of the political stakeholders and their political strategies would create unprecedented political turmoil and instability in the country. Political stability is a precondition for economic progress and prosperity of the people.
“The power struggle between the political stakeholders is undermining the welfare and economic conditions of the people of this country. The people of Pakistan have been made to suffer for a long time by depriving them of their fundamental rights. The long spells of undemocratic regimes validated by this court have caused irretrievable loss to the country and its people.
“The institutions which represent the will of the people were not allowed to take roots. Even today, 75 years after the creation of Pakistan, the institutions remain weak. The country is on the brink of a political and Constitutional crisis and it is high time that all those responsible take a step back and resort to some introspection. All the institutions, including this court, need to set aside their egos and strive towards fulfilling their Constitutional obligations,” Justice Minallah wrote.
Regarding the judiciary, he said it was obvious that “we may not have learnt any lessons from our bleak history”.
“We cannot erase the judgments from the law reports but at least endeavour to restore public trust and confidence so that the past is forgotten to some extent. When politicians do not approach the appropriate forums and bring their disputes to the courts, the former may win or lose the case, but inevitably the court is the loser,” he said.
Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Enigma SIG
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 8,593
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
Najis Mn Muth Al Shaytaan again pledging allegianxe to Whiskey and Mians balls.
That Guy
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 14,553
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
After this is all over and PTI comes back to power, the butt-boys of the Sharifs within the judiciary and law enforcement need to be removed..,,..
Elections suo motu: Justice Minallah agrees with judges Mandokhail, Shah, says case was dismissed 4-3
Haseeb Bhatti
April 7, 2023
Justice Athar Minallah
In yet another twist to holding provincial elections in the country, Justice Athar Minallah of the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday released his detailed note on the suo motu notice proceedings on the delay in holding polls in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, saying that the case was dismissed 4-3.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umar Ata Bandial on February 22 took suo motu notice of the polls in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, saying that there appeared to be a “lack of clarity” on the matter.
Justice Bandial also constituted a nine-member bench — comprising himself, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Minallah — to hear the case.
The CJP on February 27, however, split the larger bench into a five-member bench. The SC also issued a written order, which was dictated in the open court on Feb 23 when Justice Jamal Mandokhail objected to the initiation of the proceedings under Article 184(3).
Signed by nine judges, the written order of the bench stated that keeping in view the Feb 23 order, the additional notes attached by four judges, the CJP’s direction to add questions raised by Justice Shah, Justice Afridi, Justice Mandokhail and Justice Minallah, as well as discussions/deliberations made in the anteroom of the apex court, the matter was referred back to the top judge.
In response, the CJP reconstituted the bench comprising himself, Justice Shah, Justice Akhtar, Justice Mandokhail, and Justice Mazhar.
On March 1, the SC, in a 3-2 verdict, directed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to consult with President Arif Alvi for polls in Punjab and Governor Ghulam Ali for elections in KP.
The majority judgement, given by CJP Bandial, Justice Akhtar, and Justice Mazhar, however, allowed the ECP to propose a poll date that deviates from the 90-day deadline by the “barest minimum”, in case of any practical difficulty.
Justice Mandokhail and Justice Shah — who were among the four judges who had written additional notes in the Feb 23 order — dissented with the ruling. In a joint dissent note, the two top court judges said that the suo motu proceedings initiated by the CJP were “wholly unjustified”, besides being initiated with “undue haste”.
They also noted that the reconstitution of the bench was “simply an administrative act to facilitate the further hearing of the case by the remaining five members of the bench and could not nullify or brush aside the judicial decisions given by the two Hon’ble Judges in this case, which have to be counted when the matter is finally concluded.”
They argued that Justice Ahsan and Justice Naqvi had not been removed from the bench but had voluntarily recused themselves. “Thus, their short orders are very much part of the case, therefore, the administrative order of reconstitution of the bench by the Hon’ble Chief Justice cannot brush aside the judicial decisions of the two Hon’ble Judges who had decided the matter when the case was heard by a nine-member bench.”
They further said that the failure to count the decisions of Justice Afridi and Justice Minallah “would amount to excluding them from the bench without their consent, which is not permissible under the law and not within the powers of the Hon’ble Chief Justice”.
“Therefore, we are of the opinion that the dismissal of the present suo motu proceedings and the connected constitution petitions is the order of the court by a majority of 4 to 3 of the seven-member bench.”
Justice Minallah’s detailed note
In his 25 page-long note, Justice Minallah mentioned the various case proceedings that took place on the matter since the assemblies were dissolved in January.
He has also mentioned the Lahore High Court’s Feb 10 verdict where it ordered the ECP to immediately announce the date for elections in Punjab.
Justice Minallah observed that petitions were filed seeking contempt of court proceedings to reinforce the LHC’s order but that the Supreme Court had “no reason to doubt the ability and competence” of the former.
He said that the written order of the hearing held on Feb 23 included a separate note from Justice Yahya Afridi, who had dismissed the petitions on the ground of maintainability.
“The reasoning recorded in the short order was persuasive and I had no hesitation in concurring with the decision regarding dismissal of the petitions. I had reiterated my decision by recording my note in the order dated 24.02.2023.
“I have had the privilege of reading the detailed reasoning recorded by my learned brothers, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJs and I agree with their opinion, particularly regarding the final outcome of the petitions and the suo motu assumption of jurisdiction by a majority of 4 to 3 because this was the understanding in the meeting held in the anteroom on 27.02.2023. It is noted that I had not recused nor had any reason to dissociate myself,” he said.
Regarding Article 184(3) of the Constitution (matters of public importance), the judge said that invocation of jurisdiction under the article and the exercise of discretion relating to the constitution of benches and fixation of cases were crucial in the context of preserving public trust and confidence.
“The process of constitution of benches and allocation of cases must be transparent, fair and impartial. The court must always show extreme restraint in matters which involve the political stakeholders […] The court must not allow any stakeholder to use its forum for advancing its political strategy or gaining advantage over other competitors. It is the duty of the court to ensure that political stakeholders are not encouraged to bring their disputes to the courts for judicial settlement by bypassing the institutions and forums created under the Constitution,” he said.
He further said that doing so weakens Parliament and the forums meant for political dialogue while also inflicting harm on the judicial branch of the state by “prejudicing public trust in its independence and impartiality”.
“It also encourages the political stakeholders to shun the democratic values of tolerance, dialogue and settlement through political means. This court owes a duty to more than fifty thousand litigants whose cases on our docket are awaiting to be heard and decided. They ought to be given priority over the political stakeholders who are under an obligation to resolve their disputes in the political forums through democratic means. This court has a duty to preserve public trust and confidence and not to appear politically partisan. This is what the Constitution contemplates,” he said.
Raising objection on the suo motu notice, the justice said that the “premature and pre-emptive proceedings before this court at this stage is likely to delay the enforcement” of the LHC judgement.
He mentioned the notes penned by three other Supreme Court justices who had also dismissed the petition on the grounds that the matter was pending before two high courts.
He noted that the “manner and mode in which these proceedings were initiated have unnecessarily exposed the court to political controversies” and “invited objections from political stakeholders in an already polarised political environment”.
“The court, by proceeding in a premature matter, will be stepping into already murky waters of the domain of politics. It is likely to erode public confidence. The assumption of suo motu jurisdiction in itself may raise concerns in the mind of an informed outside observer.”
He further said that there was another crucial aspect that was being ignored: the conduct of political stakeholders.
“The political climate in the country is so toxic that it is inconceivable that political parties will even agree to having a dialogue, let alone arriving at a consensus,” he said.
He further said that the dissolution of the provincial assemblies, as part of a political strategy, raised questions.
“Is such conduct in consonance with the scheme of constitutional democracy? Is it not in itself a violation of the Constitution? Should this court allow its forum to be exploited for advancing political strategies or appear to be encouraging undemocratic conduct? Should this court not take notice of forum shopping by political stakeholders by invoking the jurisdictions of high courts and this court simultaneously?
“This court cannot and must not appear or be seen as advancing the political strategies of political stakeholders. The public trust will be eroded in the independence and impartiality of the court if it appears or is seen to encourage undemocratic norms and values.”
He further said that the conduct of the stakeholders has created unprecedented political instability by resorting to conduct “that is devoid of the democratic values of tolerance, dialogue and debate”.
“The conduct of the stakeholders does not entitle them to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution lest it is seen or appears to facilitate or promote undemocratic values and strategies.”
He went on to say that it was “ironic and unimaginable for political stakeholders to involve the court in resolving political disputes” which should have been settled in forums created for this very purpose under the Constitution.
“It is also alarming that the conduct of the political stakeholders and their political strategies would create unprecedented political turmoil and instability in the country. Political stability is a precondition for economic progress and prosperity of the people.
“The power struggle between the political stakeholders is undermining the welfare and economic conditions of the people of this country. The people of Pakistan have been made to suffer for a long time by depriving them of their fundamental rights. The long spells of undemocratic regimes validated by this court have caused irretrievable loss to the country and its people.
“The institutions which represent the will of the people were not allowed to take roots. Even today, 75 years after the creation of Pakistan, the institutions remain weak. The country is on the brink of a political and Constitutional crisis and it is high time that all those responsible take a step back and resort to some introspection. All the institutions, including this court, need to set aside their egos and strive towards fulfilling their Constitutional obligations,” Justice Minallah wrote.
Regarding the judiciary, he said it was obvious that “we may not have learnt any lessons from our bleak history”.
“We cannot erase the judgments from the law reports but at least endeavour to restore public trust and confidence so that the past is forgotten to some extent. When politicians do not approach the appropriate forums and bring their disputes to the courts, the former may win or lose the case, but inevitably the court is the loser,” he said.
What a joke of a judiciary where even judges can't even follow the damn constitution.
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 103,030
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
.,.,
April 8, 2023
THE constitutional prescription for elections within 90 days of the dissolution of assemblies may be ill-suited to the PDM coalition’s interests, but the government — any government — has no choice but to kneel before the law.
The recent campaign launched by the PML-N-led government and its allied parties to provoke a confrontation both with and within the judiciary — a confrontation they have sought to justify on the basis of what seems to be a gross misunderstanding of the legislature’s role within the state — is unlikely to end well for the country or any of the parties involved.
These parties and their leaders seem to have committed themselves to a very dangerous path under the assumption that their actions will ultimately be endorsed by a segment of the judiciary that they see as ‘sympathetic’ to their political cause.
However, they would do well to keep in mind that the judiciary is, ultimately, an independent institution with a mind of its own.
Although it is difficult to comment too deeply on the matter given how secluded the judiciary has traditionally been from the public eye, it can be safely said that the differences between our senior judges are older and rooted in something much bigger than the current political stand-off.
For example, the rightful objections to the non-inclusion of the senior puisne judge in benches hearing important cases is, unfortunately, not a recent development nor one that concerns recent cases only.
Likewise, the debate over curtailing the chief justice’s suo motu powers, as well as his discretionary power over bench formation, has been ongoing for years. Yes, these issues have recently spilt into public view in rather messy ways, but that should not be taken to mean that the judges’ positions on their internal matters are somehow indicative of their ‘political leanings’ as well.
Therefore, the politicians who are taking cover behind the judiciary’s internal turmoil to ‘reject’ the Supreme Court’s judgement in the elections delay case should, perhaps, not throw both sense and restraint out of the window.
It bears pointing out that even within the legal community, there appears to be very little disagreement on the fact that the Constitution clearly specifies that elections do need to be called within 90 days of the dissolution of an assembly.
Therefore, while the manner in which the Supreme Court ruled on the matter may be controversial, there is no escaping its conclusion. Unless the government deliberately wishes to undermine the trichotomy of powers within the state, it should drop its resistance and allow the Election Commission to proceed as directed.
The PDM parties may not fancy their electoral chances given the current environment, but that does not mean they have free rein to pack up the political process and sabotage the state to protect themselves.
Needless turmoil
EditorialApril 8, 2023
THE constitutional prescription for elections within 90 days of the dissolution of assemblies may be ill-suited to the PDM coalition’s interests, but the government — any government — has no choice but to kneel before the law.
The recent campaign launched by the PML-N-led government and its allied parties to provoke a confrontation both with and within the judiciary — a confrontation they have sought to justify on the basis of what seems to be a gross misunderstanding of the legislature’s role within the state — is unlikely to end well for the country or any of the parties involved.
These parties and their leaders seem to have committed themselves to a very dangerous path under the assumption that their actions will ultimately be endorsed by a segment of the judiciary that they see as ‘sympathetic’ to their political cause.
However, they would do well to keep in mind that the judiciary is, ultimately, an independent institution with a mind of its own.
Although it is difficult to comment too deeply on the matter given how secluded the judiciary has traditionally been from the public eye, it can be safely said that the differences between our senior judges are older and rooted in something much bigger than the current political stand-off.
For example, the rightful objections to the non-inclusion of the senior puisne judge in benches hearing important cases is, unfortunately, not a recent development nor one that concerns recent cases only.
Likewise, the debate over curtailing the chief justice’s suo motu powers, as well as his discretionary power over bench formation, has been ongoing for years. Yes, these issues have recently spilt into public view in rather messy ways, but that should not be taken to mean that the judges’ positions on their internal matters are somehow indicative of their ‘political leanings’ as well.
Therefore, the politicians who are taking cover behind the judiciary’s internal turmoil to ‘reject’ the Supreme Court’s judgement in the elections delay case should, perhaps, not throw both sense and restraint out of the window.
It bears pointing out that even within the legal community, there appears to be very little disagreement on the fact that the Constitution clearly specifies that elections do need to be called within 90 days of the dissolution of an assembly.
Therefore, while the manner in which the Supreme Court ruled on the matter may be controversial, there is no escaping its conclusion. Unless the government deliberately wishes to undermine the trichotomy of powers within the state, it should drop its resistance and allow the Election Commission to proceed as directed.
The PDM parties may not fancy their electoral chances given the current environment, but that does not mean they have free rein to pack up the political process and sabotage the state to protect themselves.
ghazi52
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 103,030
- Reaction score
- 106
- Country
- Location
.,.,.
April 12, 2023
The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday issued notices to the finance secretary, State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) Governor Jameel Ahmad, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) over the government’s failure to disburse Rs21 billion in funds for polls in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The top court has instructed the officials to appear in the judges’ chamber on April 14.
In its April 4 verdict — issued by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar — the SC had ordered the government to provide Rs21bn in funds to the ECP to conduct elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by April 10, and directed the ECP to provide a report to the court on whether or not the government complied with the order on April 11.
The ECP, in a report submitted yesterday, informed the court about the government’s reluctance to issue the amount needed for elections.
The government, meanwhile, has referred the matter to Parliament to decide.
In a notice issued by the SC registrar today, the apex court noted that the report submitted by the ECP yesterday stated “no funds have at all been released and provided to it as required by the order of the court”.
“The failure of the federal government to comply with the order of the court as aforesaid is prima facie disobedience,” it observed. “The consequences that can flow from such prima facie defiance of the court are well settled and known.
“Every person who embarks upon, encourages or instigates disobedience or defiance of the court can be held liable and accountable,” the notice pointed out.
It highlighted that the “disobedience” by the federal government would put the conduct of timely elections as mandated by the Constitution in “jeopardy”.
“The question of the provision of funds for such a vital constitutional purpose is something that requires immediate attention which takes priority over proceeding against those who may have committed contempt of the court,” the SC said.
Subsequently, the court issued a notice to the SBP governor and the next senior most official of the bank and directed them to appear before the chamber of the judges on Friday, April 14, at 11am. It directed them to bring the record and details of money owned by the federal government lying with or under the control, custody or management of the central bank.
The court also issued notices to the AGP, the finance secretary and the “next most senior official” in the Finance Ministry for an in-person appearance the same day. “The said officials shall bring with them all the relevant record and shall place before the court a detailed report as to why the order of the court made in para 5 of Const. P. 5/2023 has not been complied with, as stated by the commission,” it said.
Issuing similar notices to the ECP secretary and director general law, the court directed them to prepare and submit the full record pertaining to the general elections to the Punjab and KP assemblies.
ECP report
Though the contents of the report submitted by the ECP in court yesterday are not known, a source privy to the information told Dawn that the one-page report informed the apex court about the government’s reluctance to issue the Rs21 billion needed for the purpose.
The report also stated that the caretaker government of Punjab had informed the election watchdog that due to resource constraints, the government could only sanction 75,000 security personnel against the demand for 300,000 security forces.
It may be mentioned that the the SC had in its verdict ordered the Punjab caretaker cabinet and in particular, the chief secretary and the police chief, to provide a plan acceptable to the ECP for providing sufficient personnel for election duty and security purposes.
In case, the Punjab government and its officials must, in the discharge of constitutional and legal duties and responsibilities, proactively provide all aid and assistance to the commission for the holding and conduct of the general election, as per the judgement.
Govt’s hesitation in issuing funds
The federal government’s hesitation in issuing funds is being interpreted as an apparent attempt to delay elections, at least until October, which is evidenced by the tabling of the money bill in parliament.
Earlier this week, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar tabled a bill in the National Assembly and Senate seeking the release of funds for holding elections in Punjab and KP.
The bill, titled ‘Charged Sum for General Election (Provincial Assemblies of Punjab & Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) Bill 2023’, stated that funds required for conducting elections in both the provinces shall be “an expenditure charged upon the Federal Consolidated Fund (FCF)”, which it said comprises all revenues received by the federal government, all loans raised by the government and all money received by it in repayment of any loan.
The bill stated that it shall “override other laws” and have effect “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, rules and regulations” when it was in force.
It added that the proposed law would stand repealed once elections for both the assemblies were held, noting that the general elections and polls to the Sindh and Balochistan assemblies need not be held for it to be repealed.
On the other hand, a number of resolutions have been passed by lawmakers seeking simultaneous elections instead of split polls after the dissolution of KP and Punjab assemblies, as envisaged by the top court in its recent judgement.
On Monday, the Senate passed a resolution endorsing joint elections whereas the KP caretaker cabinet also put its weight behind general elections across the country on the same day.
Moreover, a resolution passed by the Balochistan Assembly cited the economic crisis and the on-going census exercise as it advocated a delay in elections.
SC summons finance secretary, AGP over non-provision of election funds
Haseeb BhattiApril 12, 2023
The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday issued notices to the finance secretary, State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) Governor Jameel Ahmad, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) over the government’s failure to disburse Rs21 billion in funds for polls in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The top court has instructed the officials to appear in the judges’ chamber on April 14.
In its April 4 verdict — issued by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar — the SC had ordered the government to provide Rs21bn in funds to the ECP to conduct elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by April 10, and directed the ECP to provide a report to the court on whether or not the government complied with the order on April 11.
The ECP, in a report submitted yesterday, informed the court about the government’s reluctance to issue the amount needed for elections.
The government, meanwhile, has referred the matter to Parliament to decide.
In a notice issued by the SC registrar today, the apex court noted that the report submitted by the ECP yesterday stated “no funds have at all been released and provided to it as required by the order of the court”.
“The failure of the federal government to comply with the order of the court as aforesaid is prima facie disobedience,” it observed. “The consequences that can flow from such prima facie defiance of the court are well settled and known.
“Every person who embarks upon, encourages or instigates disobedience or defiance of the court can be held liable and accountable,” the notice pointed out.
It highlighted that the “disobedience” by the federal government would put the conduct of timely elections as mandated by the Constitution in “jeopardy”.
“The question of the provision of funds for such a vital constitutional purpose is something that requires immediate attention which takes priority over proceeding against those who may have committed contempt of the court,” the SC said.
Subsequently, the court issued a notice to the SBP governor and the next senior most official of the bank and directed them to appear before the chamber of the judges on Friday, April 14, at 11am. It directed them to bring the record and details of money owned by the federal government lying with or under the control, custody or management of the central bank.
The court also issued notices to the AGP, the finance secretary and the “next most senior official” in the Finance Ministry for an in-person appearance the same day. “The said officials shall bring with them all the relevant record and shall place before the court a detailed report as to why the order of the court made in para 5 of Const. P. 5/2023 has not been complied with, as stated by the commission,” it said.
Issuing similar notices to the ECP secretary and director general law, the court directed them to prepare and submit the full record pertaining to the general elections to the Punjab and KP assemblies.
ECP report
Though the contents of the report submitted by the ECP in court yesterday are not known, a source privy to the information told Dawn that the one-page report informed the apex court about the government’s reluctance to issue the Rs21 billion needed for the purpose.
The report also stated that the caretaker government of Punjab had informed the election watchdog that due to resource constraints, the government could only sanction 75,000 security personnel against the demand for 300,000 security forces.
It may be mentioned that the the SC had in its verdict ordered the Punjab caretaker cabinet and in particular, the chief secretary and the police chief, to provide a plan acceptable to the ECP for providing sufficient personnel for election duty and security purposes.
In case, the Punjab government and its officials must, in the discharge of constitutional and legal duties and responsibilities, proactively provide all aid and assistance to the commission for the holding and conduct of the general election, as per the judgement.
Govt’s hesitation in issuing funds
The federal government’s hesitation in issuing funds is being interpreted as an apparent attempt to delay elections, at least until October, which is evidenced by the tabling of the money bill in parliament.
Earlier this week, Finance Minister Ishaq Dar tabled a bill in the National Assembly and Senate seeking the release of funds for holding elections in Punjab and KP.
The bill, titled ‘Charged Sum for General Election (Provincial Assemblies of Punjab & Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) Bill 2023’, stated that funds required for conducting elections in both the provinces shall be “an expenditure charged upon the Federal Consolidated Fund (FCF)”, which it said comprises all revenues received by the federal government, all loans raised by the government and all money received by it in repayment of any loan.
The bill stated that it shall “override other laws” and have effect “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, rules and regulations” when it was in force.
It added that the proposed law would stand repealed once elections for both the assemblies were held, noting that the general elections and polls to the Sindh and Balochistan assemblies need not be held for it to be repealed.
On the other hand, a number of resolutions have been passed by lawmakers seeking simultaneous elections instead of split polls after the dissolution of KP and Punjab assemblies, as envisaged by the top court in its recent judgement.
On Monday, the Senate passed a resolution endorsing joint elections whereas the KP caretaker cabinet also put its weight behind general elections across the country on the same day.
Moreover, a resolution passed by the Balochistan Assembly cited the economic crisis and the on-going census exercise as it advocated a delay in elections.
Similar threads
