All eyes on CJP after ECP volte-face

[Olympus81]

One of the CJP should own up and just start Article 6 proceedings on ECP, Interior Ministry, ISI. Basically everyone who was in the meeting.

He/She will be remembered forever.

 

[Jango]

This whole proceeding reeks of 'nazrya-e-zaroorat' and seems more like a panachayet ki proceeding rather than court.

 

[Riz]

This whole proceeding reeks of 'nazrya-e-zaroorat' and seems more like a panachayet ki proceeding rather than court.

their agenda is to keep khan away from the govt , no voting will happens next 10 or 20 years until the PTI completely finished

 

[ghazi52]

.,,..

Supreme Court issues notice to ECP for delaying Punjab elections​

• Demands guarantees from government and PTI that elections will be peaceful and transparent

BR
March 27, 2023

The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday issued a notice to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for delaying the provincial elections of Punjab from April 30 till October 8.

It also demanded guarantees from the government and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) that elections will be peaceful and transparent.

While hearing PTI's petition challenging the delay in elections, Supreme Court Justice Munib Akhtar said that the ECP’s decisions were “obstruction” in the way of its orders.

During the hearing, PTI counsel Barrister Ali Zafar noted that the apex court had ordered the ECP on March 1 to hold elections within 90 days of the dissolution of the Punjab assembly and directed relevant authorities to provide funds and security.

“On March 8, the ECP issued the schedule for elections in Punjab, whereas the KP governor did not announce a date for the polls.”

“Now, ECP has delayed elections till October 8 while it does not have the authority to give a new date for the polls.”

He stressed that constitution must be followed.

The court adjourned the hearing of the case till Tuesday.

After the ECP postponed Punjab elections earlier during the month, PTI said it would challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

Last week, Minister for Information and Broadcasting Marriyum Aurangzeb said that the decision to postpone the Punjab Assembly elections was in the interest of Pakistan.

“The Election Commission took the decision keeping in mind the economic, political and security situation”, she said in a statement.

A day earlier, PTI's Asad Umar had said the decision to delay elections violated the constitution and claimed ECP was in contempt of the Supreme Court.

 

[imadul]

Can we echo, Mao Tse-tung?

"Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent."

 

[Jango]

their agenda is to keep khan away from the govt , no voting will happens next 10 or 20 years until the PTI completely finished

Fawad Ch, I don't like everything he says, but he said something very pertinent, SC ka kaam yeh nhn hai keh dekhe faisla implement kaisay hoga ya XYZ, it's job is to give a decision according to the law, plain and simple.

Hamari SC ko ab yeh panchayeton wali adat chor deni chahiay where everything is sulahs afayi say kar lo.

Yehi karna hai to abolish the SC and get some village elders in their place, they would do a better job.

 

[imadul]

Handlers and frontmen knew postponement of Punjab and KPK elections will go to court. They used past few months to work on SC judges.
Repeat of SC attack and dividing SC Questta bench courtesy bearded corrput rafiq tarar 1997.

 

[ghazi52]

,.,..

 

[imadul]

This Sicilian mafia has long reach.
They have decades of experience to influence even the top judiciary.

Punjab HC to SC. They always have their touts as judges.
Qayyum, Muhammad Sharif, rafiq tarar.
With fascist force from isi they have even more illegal control.

 

[ghazi52]

,.,..,

CJP Bandial offers pay cut for judges so ‘vital’ elections can be funded​

Haseeb Bhatti
March 28, 2023

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday proposed a pay cut for himself and other judges so that the “vital task” of holding elections across the country could be funded and completed.

He passed these remarks as the apex court resumed hearing PTI’s petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone general elections to the Punjab Assembly till October 8.

A five-member larger bench — comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Mandokhail — is hearing the case.

In a surprise move on March 22, the ECP had put off the elections for more than five months citing the deteriorating security situation in the country and the unavailability of finances and security personnel. Subsequently, the PTI challenged the commission’s order in the SC.

Ahead of today’s hearing, the coalition parties — PML-N, PPP and JUI-F — submitted a request in the court to become respondents in the case.

During the proceedings, PTI lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, PPP lawyer Farooq H. Naek and others were present.

Can the election date be extended, asks CJP​

At the outset of the hearing today, CJP Bandial welcomed AGP Awan and said that the court looked forward to receiving assistance for him.

The top judge remarked that “we don’t want to stretch the matter”, stating that the question in front of the court was simple: Can the election date be extended or not?

“If the ECP has the authority [to extend the date] then the matter will be over,” he said.

CJP Bandial noted that the AGP had raised the point to make political parties respondents in the case. “Rule of law is essential for democracy and without rule of law, a democracy cannot function.

“If the political temperature stays so high, problems will increase,” the apex court judge added.

Here, PPP lawyer Farooq H. Naek said that there was “anarchy and fascism” in the country today.

Meanwhile, the attorney general mentioned the dissenting notes of two SC judges.

On Monday, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Mandokhail cast doubt on the judgement handed down in the March 1 suo motu regarding elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, saying that the proceedings stood dismissed by a majority of 4-3, and contended that the CJP does not have the power to restructure benches without the consent of the respective judges.

Referring to this judgement, AGP Awan said that if the court’s decision [on March 1] was passed by a four-three majority, then there was no order that was violated.

“If there was no court order, then the president could not give a date for elections,” he said, urging the bench to first take a decision on the March 1 verdict.

However, CJP Bandial said: “The question here is not about the judgement but about the ECP’s power.”

The AGP contended that the PTI petition was based on the ECP’s violation of the SC orders.

“The members of the bench are sitting here to review the questions raised in the petition. You [AGP Awan] are relying on a technical point,” the top judge said, adding that the SC’s jurisdiction was not limited to the petition.

Right now, he continued, the matter is not about giving the poll date but delaying it.

“Elections are necessary for democracy … don’t spoil the matter on technical grounds,” the CJP told Awan. “The SC’s March 1 order has already been implemented. Don’t raise this matter or present it in court again.”

Justice Manokhail pointed out that “the number of judges [who issued] the March 1 judgement is Supreme Court’s internal matter”.

He then inquired whether holding elections within the stipulated time of 90 days was not a constitutional requirement. “Can the ECP delay the date for polls?”

At that, the CJP thanked Justice Mandokhail for “clearing the matter”.

“People across the country are standing in queues for subsidised wheat today … it is the responsibility of the PTI and government to improve the situation in the country,” he said, stressing that it was important to respect all of the national institutions.

“But every institution has to work within its constitutional limits,” Barrister Zafar stated here to which the CJP said that the same was expected from the PTI leadership as well.

“PTI has to take the initiative first because it has approached the court,” the top judge said. “There is violence and intolerance in the country today … look at the economic situation … people are waiting in long lines for subsidised wheat.

“Instead of quarrelling among each other, think of these people,” CJP Bandial urged.

For his part, Barrister Zafar said that the crises would escalate if the elections were delayed.

Who has authority to extend date for polls, inquires Justice Mandokhail​

Meanwhile, Justice Aminuddin Khan inquired whether the election schedule could be further reduced from the mandated 90-day period to which Justice Ahsan responded that the ECP had the authority to adjust the election schedule within the 90-day period.

However, he said the ECP could not delay the polls beyond the specified period.

Here, Justice Mandokhail interjected that the 90-day period had already elapsed, and expressed his disappointment that the Constitution was not being taken seriously in the country.

“Elections in the country will be held anyway, but the question is who will extend the date [for polls] beyond 90 days,” he asked. “There is another question that can the assemblies be dissolved on the whim of one man?”

For his part, Barrister Zafar argued that both the prime minister and chief minister were elected representatives to which Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the assembly could be dissolved if the prime minister’s political party intended to bring a vote of no-confidence. Barrister Zafar agreed to this.

The judge then questioned whether the matter should not be debated in parliament. In response, the PTI’s counsel stated that parliament could indeed debate the powers of the prime minister and chief minister.

At one point during the hearing, Justice Ahsan highlighted that the SC’s March 1 decision had been successfully implemented. He recalled that the ECP had issued a schedule on the poll date proposed by the president.

Barrister Zafar also said that the ECP had adhered to the SC’s order as far as elections in Punjab were concerned.

“But the question is does the ECP have the authority to alter the date given by the president? Can the elections be delayed beyond 90 days?” Justice Ahsan asked.

The CJP also inquired about the ECP’s powers to change or reissue the date for elections.

He observed that Section 58 of the Elections Act did not permit the postponement of the polls. Here, Barrister Zafar highlighted that the ECP had relied on two articles of the Constitution.

ECP should have approached court if polls weren’t possible: Justice Akhtar​

Justice Mandokhail stated that the ECP had provided reasons for failing to fulfil its constitutional responsibilities and then asked what would have happened if the ECP had not announced the October 8 date for the elections.

Justice Ahsan pointed out that the ECP had the option of contacting the president to request a change in the election date, and reiterated that all administrative departments were obligated to cooperate with the election commission.

However, Barrister Zafar pointed out that Article 220 of the Constitution restricted government institutions from interfering with the ECP’s functions. The PTI counsel accused the ECP of disregarding its constitutional obligation and making the decision on the poll date solely based on the opinions of other institutions.

The counsel urged the court to question the commission about its actions and warned that Article 5 of the Constitution — which talks about the loyalty to State and obedience to the Constitution and law — would come into effect if administrative departments refused to cooperate.

Meanwhile, Justice Mandokhail observed that the date given by the ECP was already beyond the stipulated period of 90 days and asked whether this was acceptable. He suggested that the court could intervene and issue a verdict if elections were not held within the 90-day period.

Justice Akhtar remarked that the ECP should have approached the court if elections were not possible. “[The court] can be approached for elections on the same day if an assembly has been dissolved during the schedule of another assembly.”

The ECP, he continued, cannot issue an order itself. “If the election commission can delay elections for six months it can do the same for two years too.”

Justice Mandokhail noted here that the Constitution was silent when it came to deciding who had the authority to delay the polls. “Should the parliament not amend the Constitution,” he asked rhetorically to which Justice Akhtar said that if the parliament brought amendments everything would be sorted.

“But the question is what will happen to the elections that are to be held until the amendment is made,” he wondered.

Here, Barrister Zafar said that from the basis of the reasons why the elections were delayed, it seemed that election would never be held.

“If the problem is related to funds, then how will the caretaker government issue them?” Justice Akhtar asked.

CJP proposes salary cuts​

Justice Ahsan also questioned how could it be determined that the problems that existed today would not be there on October 8 as well.

The PTI lawyer replied that the ECP had said that it was not provided with funds for the elections to which Justice Akhtar stated that he had read a statement given by the prime minister in newspapers.

“The federal government says that Rs500 billion tax was collected till February … it is surprising that out of Rs500 billion, Rs20 billion couldn’t be given [for elections],” the judge pointed out.

Barrister Zafar recalled that in its order, the ECP had quoted the finance secretary as saying it would be difficult to release the funds. “It is to be noted that Finance Ministry had used the word difficult, not rejected [the request].”

Justice Akhtar said that the finance secretary had stated that it did not have funds for elections today and in the future. “This means that elections will not take place at all. How can a government secretary issue such a statement?”

He also noted that after it was collected, the tax was deposited in the federal consolidated funds.

Here, PPP’s Naek contended that federal consolidated funds were only spent with the approval of the Parliament to which Justice Akhtar asked: “If the assembly is dissolved, will the funds not be released?”

The lawyer replied that in the present scenario, a National Assembly was functioning, elaborating that a new assembly could approve the expenditure. “Only the ECP could provide an explanation for the finance secretary’s statement,” he added.

Justice Mandokhail also asked how the finance secretary could disburse funds beyond the approved budget to which Barrister Zafar said that this was a technical point.

At one point during the hearing, the CJP proposed that if cuts were made to his salary and others, then the vital task of carrying out elections could be completed.

“An entire budget is not required for elections … the government can cut back its expenditures and release Rs20 billion,” he said. “An Rs20 billion cut can be made in the salaries of judges.”

CJP Bandial highlighted that the country was in the midst of economic turmoil today and emphasised that sacrifice was needed to deal with the crisis. “A five per cent salary cut can cover the expenses of elections,” he said.

Polls to only be delayed if emergency imposed: CJP​

The top judge further pointed out that the security personnel in KP conducted the highest number of operations. He revealed that 61 operations in Punjab, 367 in Sindh and 1,245 operations were conducted in KP.

“The situation in Punjab is different than that in KP,” the CJP noted and gave the example of Turkiye, where he said elections were being held in all the areas that were not struck by the earthquake.

Barrister Zafar concurred and said that even the Election Act, 2017, highlighted that polling could only be cancelled in areas where problems existed. “It is not possible to postpone the entire elections.”

Here, the apex court judge stated that the polls could only be delayed if an emergency was imposed [in the country]. “Does the ECP order mention imposing an emergency?” he asked to which the PTI lawyer replied, “absolutely not”.

“Absolutely not was said by you [the PTI] to someone else,” the CJP quipped, which led to laughter in the courtroom.

At one point, Justice Mandokhail asked if funds were allotted for elections in the budget, saying that the procedure of taking funds was clearly mentioned in the Constitution.

For his part, Barrister Zafar mentioned that last year the CEC had said the ECP would be ready for elections in November 2022. “But now, the ECP all of a sudden says that it does not have funds … the unavailability of funds is no excuse for delaying elections.”

He further said that the ECP has the electoral staff, but had expressed concerns over the availability of security personnel. “The provision of security was the responsibility of the provinces.”

Here, Justice Mandokhail referred to the recent killing of a Balochistan High Court judge. “Is this not a concrete reason?” he asked to which Zafar replied that it was not as big a reason to delay the polls.

Separately, Justice Ahsan said that the ECP used powers that it did not have in the first place, while Justice Mandokhail reiterated that the electoral body could consult with the high courts.

However, Barrister Zafar said that because the matter was concerned with the SC, it was bound to come to the apex court. “What problem do you have with the high court?” Justice Mandokhail asked.

“The Constitution is clear that the high court is responsible for ensuring implementation of SC orders,” he said to which the PTI lawyer reasoned that there was already a shortage of time and it can’t be waster in further foraging.

“The matter is concerned to two provinces and can’t be solved in one high court,” he further said, adding that the case was of public interest and it was better than the SC heard it.

Here, Justice Khan asked if the ECP could take action against administrative bodies.

Zafar replied that the electoral body could only issue directions and courts could be approached if the institution refuse to adhere. “But the ECP had itself said that it couldn’t give a date for elections.”

Then how did it give the date of Oct 8, asked Justice Khan.

The PTI lawyer went on to say that the ECP could again in Oct say that the situation was not favourable for elections. “Would the polls be delayed till January then? If the court takes the decision, the IMF and other friendly countries will be happy.

“Even the nation’s eyes are on the SC. The court is the only wall against unconstitutional actions. The first principle of the Constitution is Islam and the second is democracy and democracy comes from elections,” Zafar maintained and completed his arguments.

Justice Akhtar noted here that Section 58 of the Constitution empowered the ECP to implement the Election Act, 2017.

On the other hand, Justice Mandokhail wondered what would happen if the election commission withdrew its order and pointed out that it would eventually have to come to court.

Elections a ‘matter of priorities’: Justice Ahsan​

Subsequently, AGP Awan started presenting his arguments in the case. He contended that the ECP order had only been challenged as far as polls in Punjab were concerned and that the matter of KP had been separately challenged in the court.

“ECP’s lawyers will defend its decision [for the delay in polls] … the government was asked for funds and security for the elections … the deployment of security personnel was sought at polling stations.

“Regarding the funds, I will present details on the matter tomorrow after taking a briefing from the finance secretary,” he told the bench.

AGP Awan revealed that the government had to receive Rs170 billion from the IMF programme and for additional disbursement, a supplementary budget was passed. He also clarified that all the arguments he was presenting in court today were as per his understanding.

“Can an additional Rs20 billion not be taken by taking further measures?” Justice Akhtar asked here to which Awan replied that imposing more taxes would increase the difficulties of the people.

“The government must have estimated more than Rs170 billion,” Justice Akhtar said.

At that, the AGP clarified that the government’s target is to receive Rs170bn by the end of June, elaborating that the IMF has asked Pakistan to increase the interest rate, which in turn would also shoot up internal debt.

Justice Akhtar asked if it was difficult for the government to collect Rs20bn. “Is there no importance of general elections? It is the constitutional responsibility of the Centre to protect provinces from internal and external threats,” he remarked.

For his part, AGP Awan said that after the 18th Amendment, the federal government had become “rich” and the provinces had become “poor”, adding that he would elaborate the court on the economic situation tomorrow.

“You said there was no money to hold elections separately,” the CJP stated to which the attorney general stated that the finance secretary had said the same as per the ECP’s order and wondered why was such a statement passed.

At that, Justice Ahsan pointed out that “it is just a matter of priorities”. “Rs10 billion can be spent on laptops, why can’t Rs20 billion be spent on elections?” he asked.

PTI’s Fawad Chaudhry said here that funds were also given for development projects at which Justice Akhtar stated issuing funds to members was a “violation of the court orders”.

How can armed forces refuse to perform poll duty, asks Justice Akhtar​

Meanwhile, Justice Mandokhail asked if the federal government was responsible for providing election funds to the provinces.

Justice Akhtar also inquired if the development funds were issued before the IMF put forward its conditions for the loan to which the AGP replied that the matter of these funds was nearly five months old.

Justice Ahsan stressed here that it was the responsibility of the Centre to release funds for elections, as Justice Akhtar suggested that a “supplementary grant” could be issued in accordance with the Constitution.

However, AGP Awan argued that the problem was the lack of resources. He stated that the Defence Ministry had refused to provide security personnel citing the security situation.

“Then what is the guarantee that the situation will improve in October?” Justice Akhtar asked to which Awan replied that it was possible that the ECP thought it would be easier to hold elections when the terms of all the assemblies were completed in Oct.

Justice Akhtar then said that all the martyrs were the sons of the soil. “What more can a person do than sacrifice his life? The families of the security forces have the strength to send their children to the front lines.”

The CJP also acknowledged that a number of expenses were incurred in the movement of the army, but then inquired if the problem [of elections] was so huge that it could not be solved.

“The issue of terrorism goes back to the 90s, but were elections not held even then? Several political leaders lost their lives … the biggest tragedy was the assassination of the PPP chairman.

“But despite all this, elections were held,” he pointed out. “Elections were even held in World War II.”

For his part, the AGP said that elections in 1988 were delayed till November because of the death of former dictator General Zia-ul-Haq.

Here, Justice Mandokhail inquired who had announced the date for elections in 1988 to which Awan replied that the acting president of that time had done so. He added that even in 1988, the matter of funds came to the SC.

“So should we assume that the nation is being held hostage by terrorists,” Justice Akhtar asked. “Has this [country] become a banana republic? Armed forces are subordinate to the government … how can they refuse [to perform election duty]?”

The judge further questioned what problem did the armed forced have in performing the duty, remarking that a “duty is a duty”.

Justice Akhtar then asked: “Should the ECP not have approached the Supreme Court?”

AGP Awan replied that whenever there was a question of constitutional authority, the matter came to the court. However, he said, this question could better be answered by the ECP’s lawyer.

In 2008, the election commission postponed the election on its own, the AGP said. “[At the time] no party challenged the ECP’s new date. Mohtarma [Benazir Bhutto’s] martyrdom was the major reason behind the delay.

“The political leadership of the day demonstrated magnanimity, he added.

Elections may be postponed where mobility is difficult: CJP​

Justice Akhtar, on the other hand, maintained that the ECP had to be ready for elections at any time. At the same time, Justice Ahsan said the chief election commissioner himself had said that polls could be held in four months.

The AGP stated here that the country’s situation had since changed. But Justice Akhtar said running a government wasn’t the election commission’s job.

Meanwhile, the CJP said that only the ECP could provide a reason that was within its mandate.

When he spoke again, the AGP said he would give the court an update about the population census. The census is underway even now, he said. “After a census concludes, the delimitation activity alone takes four months.”

Awan added that public sector staff were currently engaged in census activities, highlighting that the census results determined the ratio of (assembly) seats.

Justice Akhtar then asked if the elections be held during the census to which the AGP replied that polls were only held on the results of the census.

The judge also asked what would happen if the National Assembly was dissolved while the census was still underway. “Can an interim government publish the results of the census?”

The AGP replied that the census would be completed by April 30. However, Justice Mandokhail remarked that it took many years to get the results of the last census. “How can we trust you not to delay it?”

The AGP said both the government and the opposition lacked trust in each other.

Justice Akhtar pointed out here that the assemblies of two provinces had already been dissolved and that according to the Constitution, elections should be held in 90 days.

“Regardless of what the Council of Common Interest does, can the constitutional period to hold the election be exceeded?” he asked and then said that the “CCI has nothing to do with elections”.

The AGP told the court that the census results would impact the National Assembly elections in Punjab and KP.

“What impact would the new delimitations have on the National Assembly elections in the provinces,” asked Justice Mandokhail.

Meanwhile, the CJP remarked that since 2017, a political party has been objecting to the census. “There should be transparency in the people’s representation,” Justice Bandial remarked.

The chief justice further noted that it was for the first time that the court was examining the reasons for postponing the elections. “The matter is how elections could be postponed for such a long time,” he added.

Elections were held only 40 days after the martyrdom of Benazir Bhutto, the judge observed, adding that ECP offices were set on fire due to protests

“Elections require political maturity,” the chief justice remarked.

He mentioned that there were still several areas in Balochistan and Sindh where flood waters were standing and transportation was a problem. “Elections may be postponed where mobility is difficult,” he observed.

Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned till Wednesday, 11:30am.

Govt wants full court to hear case​

The government, on the other hand, has urged the SC to constitute a full 13-member bench to hear cases that had “significant national and public impact”, including the matter of elections.

Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar talks to the media outside Supreme Court on Tuesday. — DawnNewsTV


Tarar claimed that the apex court’s March 1 ruling in the election suo motu case was a 4-3 majority decision, and not a 3-2 verdict.

The CJP had last month constituted a nine-member bench to hear the case, however, the bench was later curtailed to five members after four judges — Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Athar Minallah — in their additional notes to 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.

Two of these judges had also questioned the SC’s jurisdiction to invoke Article 184(3), which relates to its suo motu powers, in this matter.

Justice Ahsan and Justice Naqvi — whose inclusion to the original bench was opposed by the coalition government and the Pakistan Bar Council — as well as Justice Minallah and Justice Afridi had distanced themselves from the bench.

Talking to the media outside the SC today, the law minister said that collective wisdom was more important in decisions regarding matters of public importance.

Discussing the dissenting notes of Justice Mandokhail and Justice Shah, Tarar said important matters warranted that all judges should be taken on board. He also demanded that the matter should be settled once and for all.

ECP asked to justify delay in polls​

As the apex court took up PTI’s petition on Monday, it issued a notice to the ECP and asked the body to come prepared to justify its decision to postpone elections to the Punjab Assembly.

The court also issued notices to respondents namely Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) governor, federal secretaries cabinet, parliamentary affairs and law and justice.

During yesterday’s hearing, CJP Bandial had observed that the spirit of the Constitution does not envisage the making or breaking of governments, but rather focuses on ensuring good governance and bringing happiness to the people by protecting their rights.

At the same time, the CJP had also shared his worries regarding the prevailing hostility, animosity, and bitterness which he said had been “sown into our polity”, while questioning the role political leaders were playing in restoring peace and calm in society and seeking a ‘commitment’ from parties in this regard.

The 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 was in violation of the Constitution and tantamount to amending and subverting it.

In the petition, PTI 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.

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 will 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 in spite of 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.

 

[IceCold]

How can armed forces

Because they are not armed forces, they are armed robbers.

 

[ghazi52]

,..,,.
Here, Justice Mandokhail inquired who had announced the date for elections in 1988 to which Awan replied that the acting president of that time had done so. He added that even in 1988, the matter of funds came to the SC.

“So should we assume that the nation is being held hostage by terrorists,” Justice Akhtar asked. “Has this [country] become a banana republic? Armed forces are subordinate to the government … how can they refuse [to perform election duty]?”

The judge further questioned what problem did the armed forced have in performing the duty, remarking that a “duty is a duty”.

Justice Akhtar then asked: “Should the ECP not have approached the Supreme Court?”

 

[Zhukov]

Ro Ro ke Andhey ho jaen gey. Sar phor len gey deewar mei maar ke.
Election mei nai jaen gey awaam ke samney nai jana. Aesey hi hakumat mei rehna hai bas.
How silly they sound when they do advocacy of this absurd behavior.

Inke supporter bhi ajeeb hi hain. Minority to rule over majority never succeed in a moder country

 

[ghazi52]

,..,.,

ECP had no authority to extend polls date: CJP Bandial​

CJP says ECP's decision drafted in haste; commission had no legal provisions available to extend election date

Corresponden
tMarch 28, 2023

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial said on Tuesday that it is clear the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has no authority to extend the polling date.

The CJP's remarks during the hearing of petition filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) decision to delay elections in Punjab till October 8.

A five-member larger bench, headed by CJP Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail presided over the hearing.

As proceedings commenced, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Usman Awan raised questions over the maintainability of the PTI's petition, arguing that matters related to the elections should be referred to the Lahore High Court (LHC) after two apex court judges issued their detailed opinion wherein they held that the earlier suo motu in the matter was dismissed by 4 - 3.

He said that the LHC had not given the president the authority to announce the election date. The AGP also requested the court to constitute a full bench to preside over the case.

However, CJP Bandial stated that the present case was a completely different matter wherein, the apex court is examining whether the ECP had the authority to postpone the election date.

He observed that the "question before the court is a simple one, can the ECP postpone the election date or not". "If it has the authority to do so, the proceedings will end right there," he said.

The recently appointed AGP argued before the court that two SC judges had given their verdict on the matter earlier.

However, CJP Bandial held that the opinion expressed by the two judges was not relevant in this matter.

"If the verdict was 3 - 4, then the 'breached' orders do not exist," responded AGP Awan. "In fact, if there were no court orders, then the president had no authority to give an election date even," he added, urging the court to first settle the issue of SC's March 1 orders.

CJP Bandial observed that the AGP's arguments were based on a "technical point" while the bench was seeing the question raised in the application.

He also urged the AGP to refrain from "complicating" the matter by asking questions that would delay the proceedings.

The CJP asked Awan to raise these points in a separate application, saying that the issue before the court was not about "the fixing, rather the postponement of the election date".

Justice Mandokhail remarked that the court would examine how the ECP was empowered to extend the election date.

Justice Aminuddin Khan questioned whether the election schedule could be "reduced to less than 90 days", while Justice Ijazul Ahsan observed that the ECP "has the right to adjust the election schedule within 90 days", but added that it could not exceed the 90-day limit.

"Ninety days have been surpassed even now," observed Justice Mandokhail, adding that polls "must take place under all circumstances but now the question is who will exceed the election date beyond the 90-day limit".

"The other question is, should an assembly be dissolved at the whims of one person alone," remarked Justice Mandokhail.

PTI's lawyer Ali Zafar responded that "prime ministers and chief ministers are elected representatives of the people.

"If the premier's own party wishes to initiate a vote of no confidence against them, then the assembly can be dissolved," said Justice Mandokhail.

"If a motion is moved for a vote of no confidence, then the assembly cannot be dissolved," replied Ali Zafar, to which Justice Mandokhail said, "should the parliament not take this issue up?"

"The parliament can debate the powers of the prime minister and the chief minister," said Zafar.

"The first principle of the constitution is Islam and the second is democracy," the PTI lawyer stressed, "and democracy only exists through elections".

"The ECP has the powers granted under Section 58 to ensure elections," he added.

"What would happen if the ECP reverses its decision and says nobody is supporting the electoral body in holding elections," inquired Justice Mandokhail.

"The commission will have to turn to the court to resolve the difficulties it faces," the judge observed.

Later, CJ Bandial questioned how elections could be delayed "for such a long period" by the electoral body.

"When Benazir Bhutto was martyred, elections were only delayed by 40 days," the judge observed, noting that at the time "protestors had set ECP offices on fire" and "the entire country was in the grips of demonstrations".

The CJ stressed the need for "political stability" and "maturity" to hold elections.

"The ECP's decision was drafted with haste," he remarked, "the commission had no authority or legal provisions available to extend the election date".

PDM to become party in case

Meanwhile, Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Senator and former law minister Farooq Naek requested political parties be made parties to the case, arguing that they were also "stakeholders" in the issue at hand.

Earlier, coalition parties in government decided to become parties to the case, whereby PPP, PML-N and JUI-F are expected to file their applications.

On the matter, Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar maintained that the ECP is independent of all orders.

"We had said it on the first day, the verdict is 3-4," said the minister as he reached the SC premises, "the ECP was merely doing its job as per Article 218(3)".

 

[ghazi52]

,.,.

New SC bench to hear poll delay case tomorrow after Justice Aminuddin’s recusal​

Haseeb Bhatti
March 30, 2023

Hours after Justice Aminuddin Khan recused himself from a Supreme Court bench hearing the PTI’s petition against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s decision to delay polls in Punjab, the SC said on Thursday that a new bench will take up the case at 11:30am tomorrow (Friday).

The SC order, read out by the court staff, stated that the decision regarding the members of the bench will be taken on Friday and the case will be decided before a bench that does not include Justice Khan.

In an unexpected development earlier today, the five-member apex court bench hearing the case was dissolved after Justice Khan distanced himself from it.

“After yesterday’s judgement, I recuse myself from hearing the case,” Justice Khan said.

He referred to a judgement, authored by himself and Justice Isa, issued a day earlier which noted that the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) did not have the power to make special benches or decide its members, and said that all hearings based on suo motu notices and cases of constitutional significance — under Article 184(3) — should be postponed until they are legislated upon.

The original bench — which had conducted three hearings on the PTI petition — was constituted by CJP Umar Ata Bandial. It was headed by the CJP himself and included Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Khan.

Reason for Justice Khan’s recusal​

The judgement to which Justice Khan referred for his recusal was issued in a suo motu case related to the award of an additional 20 marks to candidates for memorising the Holy Quran by heart to get an MBBS or BDS degree.

A three-member special bench, formed by the CJP, heard the case. It was headed by Justice Isa and comprised Justice Khan and Justice Shahid Waheed. Yesterday’s verdict was issued by Justice Khan and Justice Isa, while Justice Waheed disagreed with the judgement and will write a separate dissenting note.

The judgement, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, stated that the Constitution did not grant unilateral and arbitrary power to the country’s top judge to list cases for hearing, form special benches and select judges.

It proposed that cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution be postponed until amendments were made to Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the chief justice of Pakistan’s (CJP) discretionary powers to form benches.

“With respect, the Chief Justice cannot substitute his personal wisdom with that of the Constitution,” Justice Isa said in the verdict. “Collective determination by the Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court can also not be assumed by an individual, albeit the Chief Justice.”

The judgement explained that there were three categories of cases. First, when a formal application seeking enforcement of the fundamental rights was filed; second, when suo motu notice was taken by the Supreme Court or its judges; and third, when there are cases of immense constitutional importance and significance, which may also be those in the first and second categories.

Order 25 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 only attended to the first category of cases and there was no procedure prescribed for cases in the second and third categories, it observed, adding that the situation was exacerbated as there was no appeal against a decision under Article 184(3).

The order noted that neither the Constitution nor the rules grant the chief justice or the registrar the power to make special benches, select judges who will be on these benches and decide the cases that they will hear.

“We must remind ourselves of the oath that we take, which is to (a) act in accordance with the Constitution and the law, (b) abide by the code of conduct, (c) not let personal interest influence decisions, (d) do right by all people and (e) to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” it added.

90-day constitutional provision on holding elections inviolable: Imran​

Reacting to the development, PTI Chairman Imran Khan tweeted that it didn’t matter whether a five-member SC bench heard the case or a full bench did. “All we want to know is if elections will be held within the 90 days’ constitutional provision.”

He recalled that before the provincial assemblies of KP and Punjab were dissolved, he had consulted top constitutional lawyers, “all of whom were absolutely clear that the 90-day Constitutional provision on the holding of elections was inviolable”.

“Now, the imported government of crooks, their handlers and a compromised ECP are making a complete mockery of the Constitution. By cherry-picking which Articles of the Constitution they will abide by, they are threatening the very foundation of Pakistan, which is the Constitution and Rule of Law.

“So petrified are they of elections and so desperate to whitewash their convicted leaders that they are prepared to destroy the Constitution and any semblance of Rule of Law,” the former prime minister added.

SC must internally address the issue, says Barrister Ali Zafar​

Barrister Ali Zafar — who is representing the PTI in the case — said that the SC must internally address the current issue arising from divergent views among judges.

Speaking to the media outside the apex court, the lawyer suggested that the court either form a full bench or another combination of judges that it deemed appropriate to settle the matter.

Zafar emphasised that the issue at hand concerned a fundamental constitutional matter and was not limited to the composition of court benches. The central question is whether the ECP has the right to postpone elections or to determine their timing, he said.

He stated that there may be a slight delay, but expressed confidence that a new bench would soon be formed to conduct a hearing on the matter.

Zafar emphasised the crucial role of the SC as the “ultimate safeguard for democracy”, hoping that the court would uphold its responsibility to ensure a fair and just resolution of the matter.

Contention over election date ruling​

Friction in the original five-member bench could already be seen on Wednesday.

During yesterday’s proceedings, the March 1 Supreme Court judgement regarding elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Punjab became a bone of contention among top judges, as Justice Mandokhail, while sticking to his guns, wondered about the “order of the court” in the suo motu proceedings.

To date, no ‘order of the court’ has been released and in the absence of such an order, how could April 30 be announced as the election date or its extension till Oct 8, Justice Mandokhail regretted.

In case of a split decision, the order of the court explains, in the end, the “real order” and which judgement was in majority or in minority, Justice Mandokhail observed, adding that even “if we summoned the case file, one will find out there was no order of the court”.

Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar wondered how the “minority could claim to be in majority when the March 1 short order was signed by all five judges”.

Justice Mandokhail wondered whether the note issued by Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Athar Minallah had vanished in thin air or whether the CJP removed them from the bench. But the CJP observed that “whatever happens behind the chambers should be kept among ourselves”.

Instead of harping on the same point, the CJP observed that the AGP would assist the court on the footnote mentioned by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah in his dissenting note on March 1 short order and had held that the opinions of Justice Afridi and Justice Minallah will be considered part of the judgement.

The 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 was in violation of the Constitution and tantamount to amending and subverting it.

In the petition, PTI 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 will 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 in spite of 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.