ISLAMABAD, Apr 04 (EW): The Supreme Court on Tuesday termed null and void the Election Commission of Pakistan’s March 22 notification and restored the ECP’s election schedule with minor changes with setting new date for elections in Punjab as May 14.
Apex court’s three-member bench headed by Chief Justiece Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ijazul Ahsan issued the verdict reserved on Monday after hearing arguments from parties concerned.
The top court ruled that elections would be held on May 14 instead of previous schedul of April 30.
Ahead of the ruling, the Ministry of Defence submitted its report in a sealed envelop to the top court. Sources said the report contained reasons about unavailability of troops for elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The court will announce the verdict after reviewing the report.
Security Tightened
Meanwhile, a heavy contingent of police, Rangers and FC has been deployed while barbed wires have been placed around the top court as part of security measures to avoid any untoward situation.
Furthermore, only relevant people will be allowed to enter the premises of the court after verification. People, who are visiting the apex court for their cases, will have to show the proof to enter the building.
Monday’s Hearing
At the outset of the yesterday’s hearing, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked PPP counsel Farooq H. Naek whether his party had boycotted the proceedings.
Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Awan, ECP lawyers Irfan Qadir and Sajeel Swati and PTI lawyer Ali Zafar were also present in the courtroom as the hearing bagan. Also in attendance were secretaries of finance and defence.
“How can you boycott the case and at the same time attend the hearing,” Justice Akhtar said. “How can anyone boycott proceedings of the case,” he inquired. He said newspaper reports suggested that the government had boycotted the proceedings and how could he (Mr Naek) give arguments. He also asked Mr Naek to read out the joint statement and expressed displeasure with the language used in it.
The CJP asked the PPP lawyer if he wanted to become a part of the proceedings and Mr Naek assured that his party did not boycott the hearing. Justice Bandial said something else was written in the newspapers and the PPP counsel replied that his party had reservations on the maintainability of the petition. The CJP asked Mr Naek to give assurance in writing that the party had not boycotted the hearing.
Justice Bandial then inquired about the directions the AGP had received. Mr Awan replied that the government worked under the Constitution and could not boycott the proceedings. He, however, claimed that the PTI petition was based on the SC’s March 1 verdict in which the apex court had instructed the president to select a date for elections in Punjab and the governor to pick a date for polls in KP. The KP governor did not select a date until the petition was filed, he said.
The question had been raised on how could the ECP give the date of Oct 8 for polls, the CJP said. He said only the apex court had the authority to delay elections and the Election Commission of Pakistan had no such power to do so.
The CJP also said the circular issued by the Supreme Court did not overrule the order given by a bench, headed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa.
Meanwhile, Justice Ahsan said the actual matter under consideration was the ECP’s decision to postpone elections. The commission, he said, was bound to follow the court orders.
The AGP said that during the first round of the hearings, a nine-member bench had conducted the proceedings. “On Feb 21, we received the order of the court which included dissenting notes from two judges. The two judges had dismissed the case in the first hearing,” he said.
However, the CJP said only one judge had dismissed the proceedings. “Justice Athar Minallah had not mentioned rejecting the request in his dissenting note,” he said.
“Justice Yahya Afridi had agreed with Justice Minallah in his note,” the AGP argued to which Justice Bandial stated that the court had understood Awan’s stance.
Justice Akhtar recalled that on Feb 27, a nine-member bench had submitted the matter to the CJP for the reconstitution of the bench. The new bench had five judges, he added.
CJP Bandial also remarked harmony among judges was crucial for the Supreme Court. He said judicial proceedings were made public but consultations among judges were considered an internal matter.
– PML-N govt’s fresh plea –
Hours earlier, the Shehbaz-led government filed a fresh petition in the Supreme Court, seeking the reconstitution of the bench hearing the elections’ delay case without judges who heard the suo motu notice.
A miscellaneous plea was filed by Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan ahead of the scheduled hearing of the suo motu on the PTI petition challenging the order of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for postponing thr Punjab election to Oct 8.
Justice Mandokhail and Justice Aminuddin earlier recused themselves from hearing the case. The bench was broken up twice after the two judges decided not to be part of the bench. The three-member bench summoned the secretaries of interior and finance.
During the previous hearing, the request of the Attorney General for Pakistan to form a full court was rejected by the Supreme Court. In the case, the arguments of PTI lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar and Election Commission’s lawyer Sajeel Swati were completed.
