Bench hearing poll delay disbanded

Apex court to form new bench to hear PTI plea after Justice Aminuddin recuses himself

ISLAMABAD:

In a significant development, an apex court bench hearing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) plea against postponement of provincial assembly elections in Punjab stands dissolved after a member of the bench recuses himself from hearing the case.

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, was formed to hear the PTI’s petition against the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) March 22 notification, announcing postponement of elections in Punjab, earlier scheduled for April 30.

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) led federal government had demanded formation of a full court to decide the matter while some key leaders of the ruling party had openly criticized some senior judges including the CJP for their alleged impartiality.

The government had also hurriedly drafted the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure), Bill 2023, a piece of proposed legislation that aimed at curbing the top judge’s suo motu powers. The bill sailed through both the National Assembly and the Senate respectively on March 29 and March 30.

On Wednesday—March 29—an SC bench held that all cases that various Supreme Court benches were hearing under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution be postponed until amendments are made in the Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the discretionary powers of the CJP.

The three-judge led by Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Shahid Waheed issued the verdict with a vote of 2 to 1 with the dissenting note by Justice Waheed.

On Thursday, when the five-judge bench resumed hearing of the polls postponement case Justice Aminuddin Khan—who had endorsed Justice’s Isa’s ruling on Wednesday—announced that he wanted to recuse himself from hearing the case.

“I recuse myself from hearing this case in view of yesterday's verdict,” he said.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, another member of the bench, also wanted to say something but the other judges suddenly left the courtroom after Justice Khan's recusal. The bench also included Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar.

At the last hearing—on Wednesday— CJP Bandial had asked the interior and defence ministries to give a timeframe for improving the security situation. While postponing the polls, the ECP had cited deteriorating security situation as well as lack of funds as reasons for its move.

In response to the claims made by the government regarding financial difficulties to hold timely elections, Justice Bandial on Tuesday also proposed that the salaried class, including judges, could take a five per cent pay cut to fund the polls.

The government does not have money to hold separate elections in provinces but it has the money to conduct joint elections, he had observed.

Justice Bandial had also noted that the ECP did not have any right or legal backing to extend the election date till Oct 8 and asked Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan to get instructions from the federal government in this regard.

During the hearing, Justice Mandokhail had, however, cast aspersions at the apex court’s March 1 order, stating that the case was dismissed by a majority of 4 to 3 and that the CJP had not issued an “order of the court”.

Justice Mandokhail said that according to him, the verdict of the four judges in the suo motu case was the “order of the court”. He had questioned how the president could give a date for the polls and the ECP issue an election schedule if an order had not been issued.

He noted that the four judges, who had issued dissenting notes in the suo motu case, were his “brothers”. The PPP’s counsel had demanded that a full court bench be formed to hear the case.

Justice Mandokhail had, however, asked why a full court should be summoned, adding that the same seven-judge bench should hear the case. The PPP’s lawyer had argued that the ongoing situation called for the formation of a full-court bench, adding that the nation was “confused”.

He added that clarification was required on the SC’s March 1 verdict. CJP Bandial had asked the counsel to submit a written request to the court.

Election on same day

Meanwhile, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court for holding elections of the National Assembly and all provincial assemblies on one date.  The petition has been moved by Malik Faisal Mahmood through Advocate Malik Kabir.

The petitioner said the idea to hold general elections early should be discouraged as it would entail curtailing tenure of three assemblies.