Only ‘people’s decision' can overcome woes: CJP

ISLAMABAD:

Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial on Thursday observed that that the problems being faced by the country could only be addressed through the people’s decision.

The remarks came as a three-member Supreme Court bench — comprising CJP Bandial, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Ijazul Ahsan — resumed hearing Imran’s plea challenging amendments to the NAB law.

At the outset of the hearing, discussing the general elections, Justice Bandial said: “The solution of all issues of the country is only possible through the people’s decision.”

He referred to a prior ruling of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) saying: “The ECP had stated in the speaker ruling case that they would be ready to conduct elections in November 2022.”

The CJP asserted: “The current parliament has been systematically kept incomplete. The legislation taking place in the current parliament is also becoming controversial [as a result].”

The federal government’s lawyer contended that the court should not govern the country.

To this, the chief justice replied that the court did not wish to run the country but a political vacuum was difficult for the people.

Speaking about the general elections, the CJP remarked that the present government had been around for eight months.

Read more: Sindh ‘notorious for ghost schools’: CJP

He recalled that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), in the speaker’s ruling case, had maintained that it would be ready to conduct the general polls by November 2022.

CJP Bandial observed that the present parliament was deliberately kept incomplete.

The top judge also raised questions over the legislation being carried out by the current parliament.

Federal government’s lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan, while presenting his arguments, said the court should be cautious about Article 184 of the Constitution.

He added that if any law was abolished on the basis of Article 184, it would devalue the established standards.

The lawyer continued that the authority for Article 184 related to the people’s issues.

CJP Bandial told him that the facts of the present case were different from ordinary ones.

He added that the head of the “largest political party” in the country had challenged the amendments.

The top judge noted that there was immense political strain and crisis in the country at present.

He further remarked that the PTI had decided to resign from the National Assembly and for some reason unbeknown to him, now wanted to return to it.

The CJP further observed that the petitioner, Imran, was no ordinary citizen and enjoyed “massive support” in the country even after the ouster of government.

He added that the court itself did not want to interfere in the process of legislation and had not taken suo motu notice of the changes in the accountability law.

However, the judge remarked that a plea had been filed against them and the court already regretted one of its earlier judgments.

The CJP recalled that in the country's history, there was only one prime minister who was considered to be a person of integrity.

He added that even the government of that premier was dissolved on the basis of Article 58(2)(b).

Describing Article 58(2)(b) as a draconian law, the CJP noted that in 1993, even though the court had conceded that the government had been wrongly abolished, it opted for fresh elections in any case.

The top judge observed that now that Imran was no longer in power, controversial legislation including the amendments to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) law were carried out.

The government’s lawyer told the bench that never in the history had it occurred that a person, after losing a political battle and being ousted from parliament, had approached the court.

He added that it was in this manner that politics was dragged into judicial matters and vice versa.

Justice Shah observed that if a person was in the minority and their rights were usurped, where else would they go except for the court.

He added that whatever was necessary, it should be decided by the people.

The government’s lawyer said he wanted to clarify that after leaving parliament, a person was eligible to contest for more than one seat.

On the contrary, he added that in India, a candidate could only contest for a single seat at one time.

The lawyer pointed out that in case a candidate ran for more than one seat, no matter if they won or lost, it wasted public money.

The CJP pointed out that PPP founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had contested for more than one seat at the same time and after securing a win unopposed, the rest of the polls took place as per routine.

The government’s lawyer replied that the matter pertained to an era before 1970.

He added that Bhutto had paid for his unopposed victory through the 11 years of Gen Ziaul Haq’s dictatorship.

“Even a single court was unable to rescue democracy,” he pointed out.

The lawyer, while citing an article written 40 years ago in an international publication, said the people did not wish to be governed by judges.

He pointed out that now that the resignations tendered by the PTI MNAs had been accepted, it had approached the SC and the debate on the matter was taking place in the court instead of parliament.

Hinting at summoning Imran to the SC, the CJP noted should not the PTI chief be asked about why was contesting in the elections when he did not want to return to parliament.

The government’s lawyer told the bench that it was on record that Imran’s cabinet had hurriedly introduced an ordinance to amend the NAB laws.

The hearing of the case was later adjourned till Friday (today).