Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa Criticizes Presidential Ordinance as an Insult to Parliament
While reviewing the Election Commission of Pakistan’s appeal against decisions by the Lahore High Court regarding election tribunals, Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa criticized a presidential ordinance as an insult to Parliament, pointing out its redundancy in matters already legislated.
The case, presided over by a two-member bench including the Chief Justice and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, has been escalated to a three-member committee to consider forming a larger bench.
The ECP’s appeal followed the LHC’s decision on May 29 to establish eight election tribunals, leading to significant legal contention. The LHC’s order detailed the assignment of justices across various benches to handle the election petitions.
The electoral body’s challenge to the LHC’s judgment argued that the ECP alone holds the constitutional authority to appoint election tribunals, a contention rooted in Article 219 combined with Article 222(b) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the ECP maintained that its prerogative to allocate territorial jurisdiction to these tribunals is explicitly affirmed by Section 140(1), read with Section 151 of the Elections Act 2017, independent of any need for consultation on these specific powers.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Isa questioned the ECP’s approach to issuing the ordinance and its engagement with the LHC chief justice, probing the reasons behind the ECP’s controversial actions. ECP’s lawyer, Sikandar Bashir, clarified that he was not defending the ordinance itself, explaining it was promulgated due to the judiciary’s existing case burden.
Meanwhile, PTI’s representative, Barrister Salman Akram Raja, informed the court that challenges to the ordinance had been filed in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and the LHC.
Addressing multiple challenges in various courts, Chief Justice Isa expressed concerns about the unified enforcement of the ordinance across Pakistan and stated that the Supreme Court could not issue a notice as the ordinance had not been directly challenged in the Supreme Court.
