The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday ordered local body elections to be held within 120 days in the capital while preventing the number of union councils (UCs) from being increased from the present number of 125.
A two-member bench, led by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, was hearing intra-court appeals against a ruling of its single bench regarding the holding of local bodies polls in the federal capital on December 31.
The joint secretary interior ministry appeared before the court.
Read Will SC decision on polls date unnerve govt?
During the proceedings, the CJ observed that "laws have now been made" and inquired if the government was willing to "commit to 125 UCs".
"The government has still reserved the right to increase the number of UCs," he said opining that "now there shouldn't be the need to increase the number of UCs for another 10 years".
"Hold elections now, and allow whoever wins to come [in office]," Justice Farooq said.
The DG Law Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) told the court that the electoral body was willing to conduct local body elections in Islamabad within 120 days. "We will make new constituencies and schedule them under the amendment law," he added.
The federal government assured that no changes will be made to the number of UCs.
Read More Caretaker govt accused of ‘foul play’ in by-polls
The high court disposed of the intra-court appeals related to the local body elections in Islamabad. The federal government has also been prohibited from increasing the number of UCs again before the elections.
Previously, the ECP had failed to comply with the high court’s order of holding the local government elections in Islamabad on December 31.
The electoral watchdog and the federal government filed intra-court appeals against the verdict.
The PTI, the co-petitioner in the case, also filed a contempt plea against the commission’s chief, its other officials, and interior as well as cabinet secretaries.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ