The judgment on a suo moto petition questioning the delay in announcing the schedule of provincial assembly elections in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa has been reserved by the Supreme Court.
The decision will be announced tomorrow (Wednesday) at approximately 11:30 a.m. local time.
Monday and Tuesday, a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial consisting of Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, and Judge Jamal Khan Mansokhail held the proceedings.
In today’s hearing, CJP commented, “I’d like to thank all the attorneys assisting us during the hearings. Unfortunately, I cannot predict when we will return [to announce the judgment]. “
Although the judgment was scheduled to be announced today, however, later on, the CJP’s secretary announced that it would be released tomorrow.
Earlier in today’s hearing, the apex court had ordered the existing government (PDM) and the PTI to “sit together” and choose a date for elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab by today at 4 p.m. However, The counsel for the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) indicated that there were consultations among the affiliated parties of the current government, but more time was needed. He stated that proceeding with the matter would be proper.
CJP Bandial stated that even if the court rules on the issue of election dates, “litigation would continue and become exceedingly costly for the people and political parties.”
The court issued the directives after it began hearing the case following a brief hiatus.
Nevertheless, when the hearing resumed at 4 p.m., the counsel for the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) stated that the coalition parties of the present government were in consultation, but they needed more time. He stated that proceeding with the matter would be proper.
Judge Muneeb inquired who would advise the President of the Assembly’s terms expired. He emphasized that, should the Assembly’s term expire, elections must be held within two months.
According to the judgment, the President may have returned the advisory summary, which would have wasted 25 days.
The top Justice stated that elections must be held within 90 days due to the existing circumstances of the nation. He added that the Peshawar High Court (PHC) needed two weeks to issue a notice, while the Lahore High Court had a pending case (LHC).
Judge Bandial continued by noting that it was the second day in a row that the matter had been heard in the Supreme Court and that it was almost over. He remarked that the Supreme Court supports no political party other than the Constitution.
Read: Four judges distance themselves from Punjab, KP polls suo moto case
The hearing is being conducted by a five-member supreme court panel led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial.
The bench comprises Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Muneeb Akhtar, Jamal Khan Maneokhail, and Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
In court are the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Abid Zuberi, the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP), Shehzad Ata Elahi, and President Dr. Arif Alvi’s attorney Salman Akram Raja. Kamran Murtaza of JUI is also present.
Earlier in the day, during the arguments phase, the AGP argued that the SCBA president’s name was omitted from the court order despite the Supreme Court’s recognition of the SCBA as an institution.
CJP Bandial noted that what was given in court was not a court order, but if the justices overturned it, it would become a decree.
The AGP objected to SCBA bar president Abid Zuberi’s representation of the bar as the petitioner’s attorney.
Zuberi asserted that he was an attorney and not a political party. He added that the Supreme Court had already ruled that elections must be held within 90 days.
Judge Jamal remarked that the President and the governor are bound by the cabinet’s advice and questioned whether the President and governors could independently set the election date.
Read: PDM seeks the recusal of two SC judges in KP and Punjab polls case
Judge Bandial responded that the governor is not bound by anyone’s opinion regarding the formation of the caretaker administration and the election date.
“When discretionary authority exists, there is no need for guidance,” stated Judge Mazhar.
When asked by the CJP who issued the notification of the dissolution of the Assembly, Zuberi responded that the secretary of law issued the notification of the dissolution of the Punjab Assembly.
Judge Jamal argued that Article 48 of the Constitution of Pakistan stipulates that every act and action of the President must be on the government’s proposal. He questioned whether the current government or the former regime would request the election announcement.
According to Justice Bandial, the election date would be announced with guidance.
According to Zuberi, the Constitution provides four options for the legislature’s dissolution.
The caretaker government was constituted seven days following the dissolution of the Assembly, according to Judge Muneeb. He added that it was vital to harmonize the numerous Constitutional provisions.
“In the case of Punjab, the Ministry of Law, not the governor, issued the notification,” Judge Mazhar stated.
According to Article 112 of the Constitution, Zuberi explained, the administration could be dissolved by a vote of no confidence or within 48 hours.
Judge Jamal stated that, according to the Constitution, the government might still request the governor to declare the election date. Judge Shah questioned how the governor could disregard advice regarding government dates if the advice were offered.
“On January 22, a caretaker government was installed in Punjab. “The responsibility of the caretaker administration is to manage a daily business,” stated Zuberi.
Justice Muneeb remarked that the 90-day period for holding elections began with the dissolution of the Assembly and questioned why time was wasted following the PA’s dissolution.
Judge Shah questioned whether the caretaker prime minister could advise the governor to announce the election date and whether the governor could reject the advice of the caretaker government.
Read: CJP takes suo motu notice over delay in Punjab, KP elections
Zuberi asserted that the election date and supervisory structure were declared simultaneously and that the governor, not the caretaker prime minister, has the right to announce the election date.
Judge Mazhar argued that the Constitution made it plain that the government would declare the election date when the parliament was dissolved and that the governor’s authority to set a date was distinct from other issues.
Judge Jamal questioned whether the caretaker government was prohibited from requesting a date proposal from the governor. He then inquired whether the summary might be given to the governor.
According to Zuberi, the Constitution stipulates that elections must be held within 90 days, and he questioned what the caretaker administration could do if it had not yet provided guidance.
The CJP stated that the court would also hear the AGP’s arguments concerning the issue of the caretaker cabinet’s suggestion.
Zuberi proceeded by stating that the Constitution and the Elections Act granted the President specific authority and that under the Elections Act, he could choose the election date after conferring with the ECP.
The CJP inquired why the President delayed announcing a date, to which Zuberi responded that the President’s counsel might provide a more appropriate response.
The judge then inquired who the governor must consult before setting election dates. Zuberi indicated that only the ECP might conduct the dialogue.
According to Judge Mazhar, the issue is that the governor claimed he did not dissolve the legislature.
Zuberi stated that Article 105, subsection 3 of the Constitution only mentions an election date.
Judge Mandokhail stated that there was no constraint on announcing the date of the upcoming gubernatorial election. In response, Zuberi indicated that the election announcement had not been made for several days.
The CJP questioned whether the SCBA president asserted that the current government was not performing its constitutional duties. He noted that staging elections within ninety days was in keeping with the Constitution’s spirit.
According to Zuberi, the President may announce an election date if the PA is dissolved due to time constraints. In his judgment, Zuberi stated that the President could announce election dates.
See also Maryam desires Justice before elections.
“Is the governor still need to provide a date if the Election Commission demonstrates an inability to hold elections?” Judge Shah questioned. Zuberi responded that the governor was always required to provide the date.
Judge Mazhar stated that the governor would announce the date with the Election Commission’s decisions in mind.
“Can the President make decisions independently of the Cabinet?” The Justice asked.
Justice Jamal argued that the President’s powers were spelled out in the Constitution and that counsel bound him.
Zuberi argued that the President was not required to seek advice on any matter and could exercise any legal authority.
“The president and governor are merely required to confer with the ECP,” stated Zuberi.
Judge Shah stated that the President might only make judgments based on advice. as head of state.
When asked if the length of the election campaign could be shortened, the ECP representative responded that producing ballots takes time and that the election campaign can go up to two weeks.
Judge Muneeb argued that following the Constitution was more important. The AGP, however, reminded the court that the 2008 elections were also held past the deadline.
Judge Mandokhail stated that the first concern was who would announce the election date and that the process would begin once the ECP proposed a date. He stated that the hearing would not have occurred if the Constitution clarified who was responsible for declaring election dates.
According to the CJP, the jurisdiction of the Election Act cannot exceed that of the Constitution, and the President’s authority cannot conflict with that of the Election Commission.
Justice Muneeb said the attorney general was speaking against the law rather than in its defense. “The election will not be held if Section 57-1 of the Constitution is repealed,” declared Judge Mazhar.
Read: SJC receives reference against Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi in SJC
The AGP argued that, given the current circumstances, the ECP should declare the election date and might state that polls are not possible till April 14, adding that the electoral body has the necessary authority. Elahi stated that neither party had set a date and that everything was “uncertain.”
Judge Mandokhail questioned the ECP’s ability to postpone the date by 90 days and reminded the AGP that the entire controversy centered on the need to hold elections within 90 days.
The AGP stated that Article 254 might be invoked for concrete reasons; in response, Judge Mazhar questioned how the provision could be activated without a date announcement. The top Justice questioned how the Election Commission could make an error if the legislation were unclear.
The AGP suggested that the court could grant a 90-day postponement. “Do not believe that the court will participate in any unconstitutional actions,” CJP Bandial cautioned, adding that Article 254 would be implemented whenever possible.
Judge Mandokhail questioned whether the interim cabinet could send the governors a summary.
The Constitution binds both the governor and his cabinet. Therefore, the AGP reiterated that the caretaker cabinet could not submit a summary by the election date.
Judge Mandokhail suggested that the legislature pass a measure to resolve the election date issue today. The AGP responded that the current legislature is incomplete and that the court ordered the governor to announce a date, but the President stated that he would announce the election date. He noted that the President was not requested to make a date announcement.
“How long should the president wait if the prime minister does not provide counsel?” Judge Mazhar questioned.
Judge Mandokhail argued that legislation was enacted in a matter of hours. The AGP responded by stating that issues were being raised about the legislation passed by the current legislature.
The AGP demanded that the ECP announce the poll date. “The 90-day timeframe is drawing to a close, and I have no reason to question the Electoral Commission’s aim,” he continued. However, the ECP could not dodge its obligation, he added.
Once the AGP ended his arguments, Sujeel Shehharyar Swati, an attorney for the ECP, began his. Swati argued that the ECP may declare the date of by-elections and noted that, according to the Constitution, the governor should announce the provincial election date.
Swati stated, “The Election Commission functions by the Constitution and the law.”
The supreme court invited the KP governor’s attorney, Khalid Ishaq, to the podium, where the CJP questioned him about the meaning of the governor’s letter.
Ishaq is authorized to announce the date the governor dissolves the Assembly. Judge Mazhar said that the governor did not state in his letter that the election date would not be granted.
Ishaq stated that the governor of KP dissolved the Assembly on the chief minister’s advice and that on February 3, the ECP requested that the governor send the matter to the provincial government.
Ishaq stated, “The Electoral Commission also expressed its challenges in the letter.”
CJP Bandial stated that the election date could only be set by focusing on the current situation. However, he reaffirmed the need to establish an election date and emphasized that hurdles could be removed after the date is decided.
The CJP indicated that the SC could be consulted in case of a serious issue. However, according to him, the Constitution prohibits paralyzing the system. He added that elections must be held and that following the Constitution is the top concern.
Ishaq maintained that the KP governor refused to provide election dates. He also stated that the date of the dissolution of the Assembly could not be determined based on the chief minister’s summary and that it was the responsibility of the ECP to determine the date, thereby supporting the AGP’s position.
Judge Mazhar questioned why the KP governor did not declare the date if the legislature was dissolved and a caretaker administration was created.
Once the KP governor’s attorney concluded his remarks, Farooq H. Naik of the Pakistan People’s Party began his statement.
