The Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on the PTI’s petition, which contests the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone Punjab Assembly polls until October 8. A three-judge panel, consisting of Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Munib Akhtar, reserved the ruling after hearing all parties involved, including the government, the PTI, the ECP, and others.
The case saw high drama when two judges from the original five-member bench recused themselves, leading the Chief Justice to form a new panel. Earlier, the government requested a full court to hear the case and sought the dismissal of the PTI petition based on their interpretation of a “4-3” order from the Supreme Court on March 1.
The court had ruled in a 3-2 decision on March 1 that elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Punjab should take place within 90 days. However, the government disputed the court’s directions, creating a contentious atmosphere during the hearings.
Today, the secretaries of finance and defense ministries briefed the court and submitted their respective reports. Amidst the proceedings, the court dealt with questions about the participation of various parties, including those who had expressed no confidence in the bench.
Ultimately, the crux of the case hinges on the ECP’s decision to postpone elections and whether it was bound to follow the court orders. The verdict is expected to be announced tomorrow.
The Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) concurred with the judge’s observation. The Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) explained that he was not required to choose the previous members and noted that the order the AGP referred to was a minority judgment. The AGP maintained that a court order was not issued on March 1, leading Justice Bandial to question if Awan believed that a five-member bench was never formed.
During the hearing, the CJP remarked that harmony among judges was essential for the Supreme Court, noting that while judicial proceedings were public, consultations among judges were considered internal matters. Justice Akhtar mentioned that if the “logic behind the 4-3 verdict” were accepted, the issue would be referred to the same nine-member bench initially constituted to hear the election’s suo motu proceedings. He added that the decision would be made by either the five-member or the nine-member bench.
Read: Supreme court resumes hearing on postponed Punjab and KP elections
Justice Bandial highlighted that the detailed dissenting notes of the judges did not include any points about the reconstitution of the bench. However, the AGP quoted the notes, stating that the bench’s reformation was an administrative move, and Justices Ahsan and Naqvi had distanced themselves from the suo motu hearing. The CJP clarified that four judges had recused themselves from the bench and that it would have been more accurate to mention in the note that they were removed.
Justice Bandial noted that the note did not specify which judges had voluntarily separated from the bench, adding that when a judge wanted to withdraw a bench, they had to submit a judicial note. Justice Ahsan said that forming a new bench was a judicial directive, not an administrative one.
Despite the AGP’s argument that the opinions of two judges, Justices Mandokhail and Shah, could not be separated, Justice Akhtar cited Justice Afridi’s statement, which stated that he had left his inclusion in the bench to the chief justice’s discretion. Justice Akhtar also pointed out that the absence of the two judges was not mentioned during the two-day suo motu hearing conducted by the five-member bench.
The CJP explained that a new bench was formed, and the hearing began again, noting in a footnote that the opinions of the two judges were not part of the decision record. The AGP could not convince the court to separate the judges who previously heard the case from the current bench.
The CJP suggested that the government could request the formation of a larger bench, not a full court. He also said that he met senior judges in the past three days.
