The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) petition against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) delaying polls for the Punjab Assembly as the government moved to reduce the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP). A five-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail is seized with the matter. Earlier, Chief Justice Bandial overruled the objection raised by Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Usman Awan about the bench hearing the PTI’s petition as a "technical point" to be raised in a separate application. Prior to that Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail on Monday had 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 chief justice of Pakistan did not have the power to restructure benches without the consent of the respective judges. The apex court is expected to pass a judgement on the case today. The hearing As the proceedings began, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) counsel Farooq Naek appeared before the court and asked for the party to be included as a respondent in the case. When asked by the chief justice if the application was on behalf of the incumbent ruling Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), the lawyer stated that the PPP was not a part of the PDM. The chief justice ordered the electoral watchdog’s lawyer to present his arguments first. Conversely, Justice Mandokhail, referring to the apex court’s March 1 judgement regarding elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Punjab, said four judges had “dismissed” the proceedings. Justice Mandokhail added that according to him, the verdict of the four judges in the suo motu case was the “order of the court” and the chief justice had “not issued an order of the court”. He questioned how the president could give a date for the election and how could the ECP issue an election schedule if an order has not been issued. He noting that the four judges who had issued dissenting notes in the suo motu case were his “brothers”. The PPP’s counsel demanded that a full court bench be constituted to hear the case to which Justice Mandokhail questioned why should a full court should be summoned and stated that the same seven-member bench should hear the case. Read ECP had no authority to postpone elections: CJP Bandial However, Naek argued that the ongoing situation called for the formation of a full-court bench, adding that the nation was “confused”. He furthered that clarification was required regarding the SC’s March 1 verdict. CJP Bandial told Naek to submit a written request in court. The ECP’s lawyer, Sujeel Swati, came to the rostrum and was asked by Justice Mandokhail under what order had the ECP implemented the decision to announce election dates. “The Election Commission has implemented the decision of March 1”, Swati stated, adding that after the court order, the ECP approached the president who gave the date of April 30. He maintained that the schedule was released after fixing the election date and then preparations for the elections began. Swati highlighted that Article 218 of the Constitution held more weight than any other law. According to Swati, a favourable environment for elections was also mentioned in the Constitution and elections should be held under 90 days as per Article 224. The chief justice remarked that the ECP lawyer had prepared well. Swati continued that the court order stated that the decision was 3-2 and signed by five judges. He said that the ECP read paragraph 14 and the opening lines of the judgement and acted. Here, Justice Mandokhail questioned if the ECP saw the short order, to which Swati said the Commission may have misunderstood. Justice Muneeb Akhtar stated that in the dissenting note of March 1, it was not written anywhere that the decision was 4-3. He stated that it was the judges’ right to disagree. “This minority is a law and cannot claim to be in the majority,” he said, adding that five judges heard the case in open court and signed the verdict. Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the counsel did not answer his question, and stated that the short order contained dissenting notes and mentioned that Justice Jamal Mandokhail agreed with the decision of Justices Yahya Afridi and Athar Minallah. “Did the judgments of Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Athar Minullah dissolve in the air,” he questioned. At this, the chief justice urged that matter that belongs to the court’s chambers should remain there. Justice Mandokhail asked what position did the ECP take after the detailed decision. The CJP directed the ECP lawyer to continue his arguments. Swati stated that the ECP made efforts to conduct fair and transparent elections and suggested election dates under Section 57. He further said that the court's decision was received on March 3 and the ECP started implementing the decision according to its understanding. “The Election Commission has to look at the right to vote and the security of the citizens,” Swati said, adding that the schedule was issued by the president. Justice Akhtar stated that the ECP’s March 22 judgment was challenged and asked when it was issued. The ECP counsel replied that the order was issued on the evening of March 22 and nomination papers had already been received when the order was issued. He added that a few phases of the schedule had been completed by the time the order was issued. According to Swati, the army refused to provide manpower to ECP and highlighted that as per the Constitution, the elections should be conducted in a transparent, peaceful and conducive environment. He informed the court that the ECP had written letters to the army, rangers and the Frontier Corps for security. Swati also claimed that agencies gave secret reports to the commission which could be shown to the court. He stated that these reports showed the presence of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and various other banned organisations in the region of Bhakkar Mianwali. The counsel elaborated that 412,000 personnel were requested for the security of the election, but there was a shortage of 298,000 security personnel. Justice Akhtar questioned if the ECP knew in February that elections should be held in October and highlighted that on the other hand, the ECP said it could not think of deviating from the court decision. He further asked why the president gave April 30 as the election date if the election was to be held in October. Citing the reports as background, Swati said that the ECP made its decision. He said that after the grounds were available, the commission held a meeting regarding the elections and added that the Ministry of Interior in its letter dated February 8 mentioned the law and order situation. Justice Akhtar said that the ECP’s decision mentioned it required Rs25 billion to carry out the election but the court was told Rs25 billion yesterday, to which Swati said Rs5 billion were already released to the ECP. He continued that the Ministry of Finance said it cannot release funds for the election in the current financial year and the finance secretary said it would be impossible to release Rs20 billion. The CJP said that the election was supposed to be held in 2023 anyway, and asked if there was no budget for the 2023 election in the fiscal year budget. To this, the attorney general said the budget for elections was to be kept in the next financial year as it was not known that the provincial assembly would dissolve prematurely. After the CJP asked, the AG clarified that if elections were held all over the country at once, Rs47 billion would be spent, but if the elections were separate, there would be an additional expenditure of Rs20 billion. Swati stated that the special secretary interior said that political figures faced security threats, and that according to the Ministry of Interior, security threats would not only occur on election day but also during the election campaign. He added that the Interior Ministry also referred to the attack on Imran Khan.
from Pakistan News, Latest News Pakistan, Pakistan Headline | The Express Tribune https://ift.tt/gbk1IVi
