ISLAMABAD: Asking the ECP to come prepared to justify its decision to postpone elections to the Punjab Assembly. Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Monday 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.
The CJP also expressed concern about the hostility, animosity, and bitterness that “sown into our polity”. CJP asked political leaders for a “commitment” to restore peace and calm.
Justice Bandial made these observations while heading a five-judge Supreme Court bench. The said banch had taken up PTI’s petition against the postponement of elections.
The bench included Justices Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Munib Akhtar, Aminuddin Khan, and Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
Senator Barrister Syed Ali Zafar sought the supreme court to throw aside the March 22 notification of ECP. He plead that notification is ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘illegal’. Lawyer Zafar called the ECP notification the “9/11 of Pakistan’s Constitution”. He sought the SC to instruct the ECP to hold elections on April 30 as declared by President Dr. Arif Alvi in accordance with the Supreme Court directive granted on March 1.
The KP governor, federal secretaries cabinet, parliamentary affairs, and law and justice received notices from the court.
The CJP told Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Aamir Rehman that the new AGP has already met him. He may appear in court on Tuesday when he requested additional time.
Informed sources later told Dawn that Mansoor Usman Awan had called on the CJP. Mr Awan appointed AGP before Shehzad Ata Elahi, but he opted out after his appointment notification not issued on time.
Election ‘flaw’ affects fundamental rights
At the hearing. CJP Bandial said honestly, justly, fairly held elections are essential for the constitutional democratic system of governance. Any flaw in the holding of general elections was a matter of public importance that affected the fundamental rights.
Yet this also required a great degree of commitment on behalf of the political parties, the CJP observed, asking Barrister Zafar what role his party was playing for restoration of peace and serenity in society.
He made it plain that the court did not wish to interpret the laws and the constitution in the vacuum, but “we cannot divorce ourselves from reality”. If the party desired transparent elections, it needed peace to prevent corruption, the CJP said.
Judge Mandokhel asked why the petitioner did not seek the relevant high court under Article 187 if it wanted the March 1 apex court ruling implemented. Judge also questioned which of the Supreme Court orders the petitioner was relying on. He also questioned if President Alvi’s April 30 election date was within the statutory 90-day window.
As Lawyer Zafar indicated he desired implementation of March 1 ruling, Judge Mandokhel wondered if the decision deemed a court order.
However, Justice Munib Akhtar stated that the ECP’s election postponement was an obstruction that only the Supreme Court could clear. He reminded his colleagues that the March 1 brief order signed by all five judges and consequently the court order.
Judge Ijaz-ul-Ahsan added that ECP had accepted the SC’s March 1 ruling before consulting President Alvi, who declared the polls date. “The ECP’s position seems contradictory,” he said.
The CJP stated that President Alvi declared the date on the majority court decision, but the key question, whether the ECP had jurisdiction to revoke the date.
Election delayed in the past
He said the SC has never addressed such a matter, even though the election timeline was extended twice previously, after former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s 2007 martyrdom and the 1988 shift from autocratic to democratic administration.
Justice Bandial said the ECP could change the election schedule, but the question was whether it could “wipe out” the elections.
“This is altogether a new situation and therefore involves a crucial public issue about fundamental rights enforcement,” he said.
The CJP then requested to review the ECP’s constitutional authority to postpone elections.
The CJP stated Article 254, which the ECP cited to postpone the elections, is not “indemnification” because it recognizes some action but does not exonerate the wrong.
