The Supreme Court will announce its verdict on PTI’s petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone the Punjab elections on Tuesday (tomorrow) to the 8th.
A three-judge bench — comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar — today reserved judgment after hearing all parties, including the government, PTI, ECP and others. However, it did not listen to the advice of the coalition parties.
A key development
The government submits a "brief statement" requesting the creation of a full court
CJP says consistency among judges is essential for apex court; while court proceedings are public, consultations between judges are considered internal matters
Court bars lawyers of PPP, PML-N from presenting arguments on motion of no confidence in coalition government to deliberating senate
PTI says the government has failed to present a constitutional argument for postponing the electionsThe hearing in the case, which lasted over a week, witnessed high drama after two judges from the original five-judge bench – Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Aminuddin Khan – refused to hear the case. Thereafter, the CJP constituted a bench comprising him, Justice Ahsan and Justice Akhtar to proceed with the PTI petition.
The government today, through Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, submitted a statement seeking the formation of a full court to hear the case. It also sought dismissal of PTI’s petition in light of what it interpreted as a “4-3” order passed by the apex court on March 1.
In a 3-2 verdict, the Supreme Court ruled on March 1 that elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab – both under caretaker government since the dissolution of provincial assemblies in January – should be held within 90 days.
However, the government went against the court’s instructions and instead marked the verdict as 4-3 after objections were raised by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah – who were among the four judges who wrote additional observations on the February 23 order. on the constitution of the Bench and also on the invocation of the suo motu jurisdiction of the High Court by the Chief Justice.
However, the CJP rejected the government’s request for a full court and instead suggested that a larger bench could be sought.
During today’s hearing, the secretaries of the ministries of finance and defense briefed the court and submitted relevant reports.
“The government cannot boycott the proceedings”
AGP Awan, ECP lawyers Irfan Qadir and Sajeel Swati, PTI lawyer Ali Zafar and PPP counsel Farooq H. Naek were present in the courtroom when the hearing began today.
The secretaries of the Ministries of Finance and the Interior were also present.
At the beginning of the hearing, Naek came to the stand. Justice Bandial asked the lawyer whether the PPP had ended its boycott against the court hearing, to which he replied that it had not boycotted the proceedings.
“How can you boycott [the hearing] on the one hand and also attend the proceedings on the other,” wondered Justice Akhtar. “For the last 48 hours, the media has been saying that political parties are expressing no confidence in the council.
“How are you going to make your case if you don’t believe us?” the judge asked, then declared that the court would only hear Naek if he retracted the statement – jointly issued last week by coalition leaders expressing “total no confidence” in the senate.
Justice Akhtar also asked Naek to read out the joint statement and expressed displeasure at the language used in it.
Here, the CJP asked the PPP lawyer if he wanted to be a part of the proceedings, to which Naek replied in the affirmative, saying “we have never boycotted hearings”.
“But something else was written in the newspaper,” Judge Bandial pointed out. Naek responded that his party had reservations about the petition’s sustainability.
However, the CJP insisted that Naek confirm in writing that he had not boycotted the hearing.
Addressing the AGP, Justice Bandial asked about the instructions he had received, to which Awan replied that the government was working under the constitution and could not boycott the proceedings.
“The only court has the power to postpone the vote”
Subsequently, AGP Awan started presenting his arguments. The lawyer pointed out that PTI’s petition was based on the March 1 SC verdict in which the apex court had directed the President to select the date for the Punjab elections and the Governor to select the date for the KP elections.
“But the KP governor never picked a date until the petition was filed,” he pointed out.
“The question is how can the ECP give the date of October 8 for the polls,” the CJP said here. “The law does not give anyone the power to postpone elections. Only the court can postpone the election date.
“Back in 1988, elections were postponed on court orders,” he recalled, adding that court orders were issued based on “ground realities”.
“The order you are referring to here [March 1 SC verdict] has already been executed,” Justice Bandial pointed out.
Justice Ahsan observed that the real issue at issue was the ECP’s decision to postpone the election, noting that the commission was bound to comply with court orders.
Here, AGP Awan recalled that during the first round of hearings – a suo motu trial on the Punjab and KP elections – a nine-member senatorial panel conducted the proceedings.
“On February 21, we received a court order that contained dissenting remarks from two judges. Both judges dismissed the case at the first hearing,” he said.
However, the CJP intervened and said that only one judge dismissed the proceedings. “Justice Athar Minallah did not mention the denial of the application in his dissenting note,” he said.
“Justice Yahya Afridi in his note agreed with Justice Minallah,” AGP argued, after which Justice Bandial said the court understood Awan’s position.
Justice Akhtar recalled that on February 27, a nine-judge bench referred the case to the CJP for reconstitution of the bench, with Justice Ahsan adding that when the bench was reconstituted, it consisted of five judges.
The AGP agreed with the judge’s observation.
Meanwhile, the CJP clarified that he is not bound to select the previous members and pointed out that the order referred to by the AGP was a minority judgement.
The AGP objected that a court order was not issued on March 1, to which Justice Bandial asked whether Awan believed the five-member panel had never been constituted.
“Harmony among judges is essential for SC”
At one point during the proceedings, the CJP remarked that consistency among judges was essential for the Supreme Court. He pointed out that at the trial
