Islamabad: The Supreme Court resumed hearing Pakistan Tehreek-e-(PTI) Insaf’s lawsuit against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) delaying Punjab Assembly elections on Wednesday as the government reduced the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s powers (CJP).
Chief Judge Umar Ata Bandial heads a five-member bigger bench alongside Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Aminuddin Khan, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
Judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail, one of the five-judge bench, made it plain that the case dismissed by a majority 4-3 because the chief justice did not issue a “order of the court” on March 1.
Chief Judge Bandial dismissed AGP Usman Awan’s objection to the bench considering the PTI’s appeal as a “technical point” to raised in a separate application.
On Monday, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail cast doubt on the March 1 suo motu regarding elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, saying that the proceedings dismissed by a 4-3 majority and that the chief justice of Pakistan did not have the power to restructure benches without the consent of the judges.
The apex court set to rule today.
The hearing
As proceedings commenced, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) counsel Farooq Naek urged the court to include the party as a respondent.
The counsel told the chief justice that the PPP was not part of the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM).
The chief justice instructed the electoral monitor to argue first.
Judge Mandokhail said four judges had “dismissed” the proceedings in the March 1 apex court ruling on elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Punjab.
Judge Mandokhail said that the four judges’ suo motu verdict was the “order of the court” and that the chief justice had “not issued an order of the court”.
He asked how the president and ECP could set an election date without an order. He called the four suo motu judges who dissented his “brothers”.
Judge Mandokhail asked why the PPP’s counsel wanted a full court to hear the case and suggested that the same seven-member bench should hear it.
Naek said the nation “confused” and needed a full-court bench. He added that the March 1 SC ruling needed explanation.
CJP Bandial ordered Naek to file a written request in court.
Judge Mandokhail questioned ECP lawyer Sujeel Swati what order the ECP announced election dates.
Swati said that after the court order, the ECP addressed the president, who assigned the deadline of April 30.
After setting the election date, the schedule issued and election preparations began. Swati stressed that Article 218 of the Constitution was supreme.
Moreover, Swati stated that Article 224 requires elections to held within 90 days in a favourable environment.
The chief judge said the ECP counsel prepared properly.
More in the Court hearing
Swati said the court order claimed the decision was 3-2 and signed by five justices. The ECP acted after reading paragraph 14 and the judgment’s opening paragraphs.
While, Judge Mandokhail asked if the ECP saw the short order, and Swati answered the Commission may have misinterpreted.
Moreover, Judge Muneeb Akhtar said the March 1 dissenting letter did not mention the 4-3 ruling. He said judges could disagree.
He added that five judges heard the case and signed the verdict.
Judge Jamal Mandokhail noted that the counsel did not address his question, that the brief order contained dissenting notes, and that he concurred with Justices Yahya Afridi and Athar Minallah.
“Did Justice Yahya Afridi and Judge Athar Minullah’s rulings evaporate?” he asked.
The chief justice advised keeping court chambers matters there.
Judge Mandokhail requested the ECP’s position after the comprehensive decision. The CJP ordered the ECP barrister to argue.
Swati said the ECP tried to hold fair and transparent elections and offered Section 57 poll dates. He added that the ECP began executing the court’s March 3 judgement.
President
Swati said the president issued the schedule and that the Election Commission must consider the right to vote and citizen security.
Judge Akhtar questioned the ECP’s March 22 verdict and when it issued. The ECP counsel stated that the directive issued on the evening of March 22 and nomination papers already received. The order given after a few steps of the timetable finished.
Moreover, According to Swati, the army declined to provide troops to ECP and noted that the Constitution requires transparent, peaceful, and favourable elections. While, The ECP had written to the army, rangers, and Frontier Corps for protection, he told the court.
Moreover, Swati alleged agencies offered the panel confidential reports that may shown in court. He said these records showed Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other banned groups in Bhakkar Mianwali.
Hearing continued
The lawyer explained that 412,000 electoral security officers requested, but 298,000 lacking.
Justice Akhtar questioned if the ECP knew in February that elections place in October and noted that the ECP maintained it could not deviate from the court judgement.
He also inquired why the president chose April 30 if the election was in October.
Swati said the ECP decided based on reports. After receiving the grounds, the panel met to discuss the elections, and the Ministry of Interior’s February 8 letter highlighted law and order.
Judge Akhtar said the ECP’s ruling stated it needed Rs25 billion to conduct the election. Swati said Rs5 billion already released to the ECP.
He stated the Ministry of Finance cannot give funding for the election in the current financial year. The finance secretary indicated Rs20 billion is unattainable.
The CJP asked if no budget for the 2023 election in the fiscal year budget as the election planned to place in 2023.
As its unknown that the provincial parliament would dissolve early, the solicitor general said the election budget preserved in the next financial year.
Once the CJP questioned, the AG explained that if elections held nationwide, Rs47 billion is expenditure. If separate, Rs20 billion spent.
Swati said that the special secretary of interior claimed political personalities feared security threats and that the Ministry of Interior predicted security problems on election day and during the campaign. The interior ministry also mentioned Imran Khan’s attack.
Moreover
The commission’s counsel claimed that the electoral body informed that election security would be “impossible” without the army.
Moreover, He added that the special secretary of interior said peaceful elections were impossible in these conditions and that the country’s top intelligence agency had informed the commission that banned organisations had formed parallel governments in K-P.
Swati reported 443 security threats, 80 terrorism acts, and 170 martyrdoms in K-P in 2023. According to private reports, the difficulties would take six to seven months to rectify.
While, The top justice called the ECP’s information “serious” and asked if they informed the president.
“If you did not tell the president of Pakistan, you have committed a mistake,” Judge Bandial added, adding that the president gave the date on ECP recommendation.
Moreover, Swati added that security operations were ongoing in various Punjabi areas, to which the CJP replied that kutcha areas had operations every two to three days.
Swati told CJP Bandial that some surgeries could take six months.
Judge Akhtar replied that two assemblies had been dissolved. The attorney stated the ECP had no reason to mistrust the agencies’ report.
The ECP’s lawyer underlined that the agency reports were indisputable.
Judge Mandokhail asked if these reports could be verified, to which the CJP replied that terrorism was present. Swati said media reported incidences.
Notwithstanding terrorism for two decades, Pakistan held elections, according to the CJP. In the 1990s, “when communism and terrorism were on the rise,” elections were held three times.
Judge Bandial said the ECP offered new dates without consulting the president, but Swati said the president wrote to the prime minister, not the ECP.
While, Punjab saw five terrorism events, including Imran Khan’s assassination, according to the CJP.
Elections
Justice Akhtar doubted the ECP would hold elections if the necessary institutions supported it. Swati said the ECP would hold Punjab elections if other state organisations provided finances and support.
Judge Akhtar said the ECP was a “constitutional body” and had to hold elections after two assemblies were dissolved. He said every life was precious and terrorism was serious.
He suggested the court use the Constitution to resolve the issue.
On March 20, the ECP responded to the federal cabinet, which endorsed the military ministry in its reply, Swati added. He stated the government refused to pay the ECP because it could not sanction army deployment for the poll.
Judge Akhtar questioned why the ECP did not consult the court before cancelling the election timetable. Swati said the ECP obeyed court orders, but Judge Mandokhail asked where the court order signed by all justices was. Swati said the electoral watchdog believed the judgement was 3-2. Court recessed.
Election dates
During a brief pause, with the attorney general and ECP’s lawyer at the rostrum, Swati indicated that the commission’s October 8 date not temporary.
According to security agencies, elections in particular places will attract terrorists.
He stated the ECP’s duty to conduct elections with integrity did not impair fundamental rights.
Swati noted that the ECP also responsible for peaceful and transparent elections and that security services had promised to finish the “arrangements” on time.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan questioned how the ECP could amend the polling date given by the governor and president, noting that the Constitution explicitly indicated who would provide it. He asked if Section 58 of the Election Act superseded the Pakistani Constitution.
The chief justice said the EPC should have addressed the highest court and persuaded the bench, adding that the lawyer had the chance to do so today.
Judge Bandial wondered why October 8 could not be replaced with September 8 or August 8.
While, The ECP lawyer said that October 8 is the first Sunday after six months.
Election Schedule
Moreover, Swati told Justice Mandokhail that the election schedule included the polling date.
Judge Aminuddin asked why the president was not told about the February meetings and why the ECP’s date did not match the president’s. “Why was April 30 chosen when elections could not be held?” he wondered.
Swati said that March judged the matter’s sensitivity.
Moreover, Judge Khan noted that the apex court did not restrict the ECP from alerting the president, to which the commission’s lawyer replied that the ECP was responsible for investigating the matter.
Khan inquired why the election schedule followed while the ECP was back before the bench.
While, Akhtar inquired if the commission could deny elections if the president declared the date.
After cancelling the programme, the ECP marked October 8, according to the chief justice. He said the ECP wanted SC permission for October 8. Justice Akhtar said Section 58 did not allow the ECP to extend the election date, and Justice Mandokhail said the ECP only had to defend its order while the petitioner had to prove the court order was violated.
Like elections, Swati claimed that life a fundamental right. He stated that only unconstitutional and malicious ECP orders might be annulled by the court.
Moreover, Swati told Judge Mandokhail that the PTI plea did not mention malice. Judge Akhtar called the ECP’s order a plea for aid.
Afterward, Swati said the Election Commission was responsible for fair elections.
Judge Mandokhail added that the ECP relied on the government, which had to state if it could assist the Commission.
Govt Briefing
Judge Mandokhail also inquired if the ECP liked the government’s briefing. If the government supported elections on April 30, the ECP counsel said.
“If the administrative entities were not collaborating, they would have alerted the court,” Judge Ahsan remarked.
Judge Mandokhail wondered if the court might request elections if the ECP dissatisfied for ten years. Swati said the ECP would make a realistic decision.
Chief Judge Bandial declared, “If the Election Commission cannot find a solution, we will.” In 1988, the court delayed elections, and in 2008, no one objected to postponing them.
Moreover, He asked how Article 218-3 could override Article 224. Swati stated Article 218-3 discusses transparent and fair elections.
Afterward, Swati told the CJP that democracy would collapse if elections weren’t transparent.
While, Bandial said that if the ECP wanted to avoid even small disputes, they should allow individuals to vote from home.
The Election Commission’s lawyer finished arguing.
CJP concludes
Chief Justice Bandial concluded the session by stating that the SC has requested a written guarantee from the PTI to lower the country’s political temperature.
While, He said political stress was harming state institutions and people were talking about them. Institutions listen because they cannot communicate.
For transparent elections, the chief justice requested political cooling. Sportsmen, not warriors, played fair.
Moreover, The CJP said anger must contained and questioned who would reassure the current government, adding that a senior person would be suitable.
He added that judicial proceedings meant to maintain the state’s constitutional order, not profit anyone.
While, Democracy requires elections. Both chief ministers dissolved assemblies. He said progress requires action.
He ordered the ECP to give the Ministry of Interior and Defense the shortest time to fix the situation.
If necessary, the CJP suggested holding elections over two days.
