Nation on tenterhooks as SC announces poll verdict today

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on the PTI’s petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan’s order postponing the election in Punjab to be announced today (Tuesday).

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, and comprising Justices Munib Akhtar and Justice Ijazul Ahsan was hearing the petition.

The chief justice observed that the apex court did not wish to put people in a difficult situation. The hearings in the case, which lasted over a week, witnessed high drama after two judges of the original five-member bench — Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Aminuddin Khan — recused themselves from hearing the case. Thereafter, the chief justice constituted a bench comprising himself, Justice Ahsan and Justice Akhtar to proceed with the PTI petition.

Earlier, the government submitted a statement through Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Awan, requesting the formation of a full court to hear the case. It also sought dismissal of the PTI petition in the light of what it interpreted as a “4-3” order issued by the apex court on March 1.

During the course of hearing, the chief justice observed that "the court will be blamed if anything would go wrong during the elections", adding that it was because of this fear that political parties were given the option of resolving the matter through political dialogue. “None of the parties responded to the offer,”

"The Constitution is clear about when elections should be held," the chief justice maintained. The chief justice said that people believed they were above the Constitution and wanted their cases to be decided by judges of their preference. To this, the AGP said that no one had done so.

Irked by the government declaring ‘no-confidence’ in the three-member bench, the top court refused to listen to the arguments of the ruling parties’ lawyers.

Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) lawyer Akram Sheikh stated that he had appeared before the Supreme Court to assist it. He contended that he could make his own decisions if a party asked him to support something illegal. The lawyer added that he had the utmost respect for the apex court.

The chief justice stated that had respect for Sheikh, Farooq H Naek and Kamran Murtaza. However, the ruling parties had expressed no-confidence in the three-member bench hearing the case.

He added that Sheikh was not present before the court in a personal capacity, rather was there to represent a political party.

Adding to this, Justice Akhtar said that the lawyer’s power of attorney was also not filed in a personal capacity, adding that the government’s stance was relayed to the court by its staff through a statement shared from the PML-N’s Twitter account.

At one point during the hearing, the CJP noted that harmony among judges was crucial for the Supreme Court. He observed that while judicial proceedings were made public, consultations among judges were considered internal matters.

On the other hand, Justice Akhtar stated that if the “logic behind the 4-3 verdict” were accepted, the matter would be referred to the same nine-member bench that was first constituted to hear the elections suo motu proceedings.

He added that the decision then would either be of the five-member bench or the nine-member bench.

Justice Bandial pointed out that the detailed dissenting notes of the judges did not include any points about the reconstitution of the bench.

Earlier during the hearing, the court directed the defence secretary to submit a classified report to explain reasons why the armed forces are not available to perform security duties in general elections of provincial assemblies.

The chief justice also asked Defence Secretary Lieutenant General Rahmood-ul-Zaman to consider other forces like Pakistan Air Force, Pakistan Navy and Rangers if the armed forces were not available. "These have the same respect as Pakistan Army," the chief justice said. He also asked whether reserved army officials could be called for elections duty.

Earlier, the defence secretary requested the court to allow in-camera briefing on the election issue. The bench, however, asked him to submit a written answer in a sealed envelope first.

Full court request

The chief justice said that the court always took caution when it came to taking suo motu notice, recalling that the first such notice this year was taken when the SC received requests from the speakers of two assemblies.

The CJP disagreed with the argument that this case was different from other cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. He inquired how the court could stop action on cases whose rules had already been established.

The chief justice emphasised that the procedure for jurisdiction under Article 184(3) was very strict. He highlighted that the judge who signed Justice Isa’s order had recused himself from the bench. And questioned how it was possible for Justice Isa, who authored the order, to hear the case.

He 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.

Meanwhile, the federal government told the court that organising and conducting free and fair elections in the presence of elected provincial governments in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa may not be possible.

Submitting its written response, the attorney general for Pakistan also urged the apex court to include the remaining six Supreme Court judges in the bench presiding over the case probing into the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) decision to delay provincial assembly polls.

The concise statement stressed the need for a full bench to end the controversy regarding the 4 to 3 order.