Election in 90 days? SC bench to announce crucial verdict on delay in Punjab polls today
The Supreme Court will today announce its much-awaited verdict on the PTI’s petition against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone polls in Punjab by more than five months.
A three-member bench — comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar — reserved the judgment in the case a day earlier after hearing all the parties, including the government, the PTI, the ECP and others.
The court closed its proceedings with a direction to Defence Secretary Hamood Zaman and Finance Additional Secretary Amir Mehmood to convince the court and submit reports about the overwhelming impediments blocking the holding of the elections in Punjab.
Ahead of the judgement today, the secretary of defence — who was summoned by the court on Monday — submitted a report regarding the availability of security personnel during elections to the judges in their chamber.
Separately, several lawyers and political leaders gathered inside Court Room 1, where the verdict is expected to be pronounced.
Outside the apex court’s building, heavy security was deployed with a large contingent of police guarding the main entrance.
Hope SC will use collective wisdom, says govt
Meanwhile, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah had said that the government expected the SC to pass a verdict that would help push the country out of crises.
“We hope better sense will prevail and the political crisis in the country will come to an end,” he told media persons outside the apex court.
Reiterating the federal coalition’s demand regarding a full court, Sanaullah stated that the government still stood by it. “Our stance right now is the voice of the nation — this matter can only be resolved via a full court.
“Even the PTI has said that they don’t have any objection to a full court. Then why isn’t the CJP forming it?” he asked.
The minister also stressed that elections should be held in the country simultaneously, adding that separate polls to provincial assemblies will only create anarchy, chaos and further political crises.
Standing beside Sanaullah, Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar said: “Institutions work collectively and not on the dictation of one person. We hope that the SC will also use collective wisdom and take this matter forward.”
Diminished bench
The hearings in the case, which lasted over a week, witnessed high drama after two judges of the original five-member bench — Justices Aminuddin Khan and Jamal Khan Mandokhail — recused themselves from hearing the case, laying bare the cracks within the SC.
Thereafter, the bench was reconstituted with the remaining judges: CJP Bandial, Justice Ahsan and Justice Akhtar.
However, the coalition government — which had been demanding a full court to hear the case — raised reservations on the bench. In a National Assembly meeting yesterday, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif categorically said the ruling coalition had no confidence in the three-member SC bench.
Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar had also called on the top court judge to “get your hours in order”.
Last week, parties in the coalition government issued a joint statement which said that “a complete distrust had been shown in the three-member bench of the SC comprising CJP Bandial, Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar”.
“The huddle demands wrapping up [of] the three-member bench’s proceedings regarding the delay in elections to the Punjab Assembly forthwith,” it had said.
It had pointed out that there had been a “clear division in the SC, therefore it should refrain from issuing controversial political decisions”.
Earlier this month, the government also moved the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill 2023 to the National Assembly and Senate. The proposed law aims to deprive the office of the CJP of powers to take suo motu notice in an individual capacity. While both houses have passed the bill, it is yet to be approved by the president.
Debate over election date order
During the proceedings, a debate was also held on the SC’s March 1 verdict regarding elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab.
The apex court, had in a 3-2 verdict, ruled on March 1 that elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab — both of which have been under caretaker governments since the provincial assemblies were dissolved in January — should be held within 90 days.
The government, however, had disputed with the court directions, calling the verdict 4-3 instead after Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah — who were among the four judges who had written additional notes in 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.
Arguments over this contention were made by Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan during the hearing. However, the CJP brushed aside the 4-3 controversy and said nobody had recused from the nine-judge bench, besides all judges had requested him to reconstitute the bench.
The CJP had also rubbished the concept of order of the day in case of dissenting judgement by asking the AGP to come up with any law requiring the issuance of an order of the court.
PTI 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 violated the Constitution and tantamount to amending and subverting it.
In the petition, PTI had 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 would 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 despite 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.