SC won’t ‘sit idle’ on Punjab polls order: CJ

ISLAMABAD:

Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial on Friday remarked that the Supreme Court would not sit idle on its earlier decision of holding the elections in Punjab on May 14 if the negotiations between the government and PTI failed.

He added that the court had to follow its decision according to the Constitution.
A three-judge bench, comprising Justice Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Justice Munib Akhtar, resumed the hearing of a petition filed in connection with the same day polls.

A day earlier, the top court issued its April 27 order, wherein it distanced itself away from the government-PTI talks, saying that its April 4 decision of holding polls in Punjab would remain unchanged.

After three rounds of talks, the government and PTI were unable to agree on a date for the same day elections.

On Wednesday, the PTI had submitted an application to the SC, informing it that the party's talks with the government had failed to bear any fruit and the court should enforce its April 4 order to hold elections in Punjab on May 14.

As the proceedings commenced, the CJP noted that he could see that both PTI leader Shah Mahmood Qureshi and PML-N’s Khawaja Saad Rafique were present in the court.

PPP lawyer Farooq H Naek read out the coalition government's reply in the court. He said the country’s debts had increased by 78%.

He added that the circular debt had jacked up by 125% while a loss of $31 billion was caused because of the floods last year.

Naek continued that the budget, International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreement and trade policy must be approved before the assembly could be dissolved.

The PPP lawyer said the government and PTI had agreed on a level playing field and one-day elections, but could not reach a consensus on the date of the dissolution of the assembly.

He further informed the court that the government was ready to restore the process of negotiations in the interest of the country and in any case elections should be held on the same day this year.

The PPP counsel told the court that the Sindh and Balochistan assemblies were not ready for premature dissolution.

He added that each side had to show flexibility in negotiations.

However, he maintained that  success in negotiations could not be achieved in a few days, so more time was required for talks.

The CJP remarked that the IMF agreement was emphasised in the government's response, but the issue in the court was  constitutional, not a political one.

He added that the court left the political issues to the parties to address.

The top judge then inquired why the approval of the IMF agreement and trade policy were important.

Naek replied that it was necessary to receive the IMF loan to obtain aid from friendly countries and in the absence of the assemblies, the budget would not be approved.

He continued that if the assemblies of Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa had not been dissolved, the crisis would not have occurred.

He maintained that the time of the court was also being wasted because of this crisis.

Justice Bandial inquired whether the IMF loan would be used to increase foreign reserves or repayment of loans.

Naek replied that only the finance minister could respond to this query.
The top judge pointed out that the Constitution allowed four months' time for the budget even after the dissolution of the assembly.

He asked the lawyer whether or not the budget was being prepared under the IMF package.

The CJP noted that according to newspapers, friendly countries would also give loans to the country after the IMF package.

He asked if the PTI had accepted or rejected the importance of the budget.
Justice Bandial observed that nobody could deny the 90-day limit for elections in the Constitution.

The PPP lawyer replied that there were no two opinions over the conducting of elections within 90 days.

The CJP remarked that it was a matter of national and public importance to enforce the Constitution.

He added that the court had decided to hold elections in 90 days.

Justice Bandial noted that if the negotiations failed, the SC would not sit idle on its decision of holding elections in Punjab on May 14, but the court had to follow its decision according to the Constitution.

He added that the court wanted to look at the public interest and if there was a constitutional problem, it could not turn a blind eye to it.

Justice Bandial remarked that the SC could use the Constitution to implement its decisions.

The court only wanted to perform its duty, he added.

Referring to statements alleging that courts did not respect the Constitution in the past, the CJP noted that the SC refrained from commenting on such statements as a sign of respect.

He added that decisions made in anger were often wrong and that was why judges stayed calm.

The CJP asked the PPP counsel to draw comparisons between the discussions held in court and those that occurred in parliament.

“Observe the level of discussion being held here [in the court],” he continued.
The PPP counsel said the court had to review the issue of elections in 90 days.
He added that after the 18th Constitutional Amendment, elections required caretaker governments.

He continued that nobody would accept the polls with elected governments.
Naek pointed out that elections held under the caretaker set-ups were also challenged, and if there was a regular government, there would be a great deal of hue and cry over the results of the polls.

The top judge remarked that when the suo motu notice of matter was taken February 23, the government raised its fingers and all these points were not taken up back then.

He added that the government had now raised the issues of caretaker set-ups and funds but back then, it was only interested in 4-3 verdict.

Justice Bandial observed that the government did not even try to receive a verdict by the court.

He continued that constitutional proceedings were not taken seriously by the government.

Naek replied that the court was unwilling to hear the government’s version.
The CJP told Naek that the government had boycotted court proceedings in the second round.

“You continued your discussions for three or four days instead,” he added.
The CJP remarked that Justice Athar Minallah had raised the point of restoring the assemblies, but the government was not interested.

“Look at today’s conversation, no one is talking about judgment or law,” he continued.

The CJP observed that the seriousness of the government was such that it had not even filed a review appeal against the SC judgment.

“The government doesn’t want to talk about law but wants to do politics,” he maintained.

The CJP remarked that the court would not respond to politics.

He added that he had taken an oath to protect the Constitution.
The top judge noted that along with economic, political, and security, there was also a constitutional crisis in the country.

He reminded the PPP counsel that eight people had embraced martyrdom just a day earlier.

Justice Bandial noted that the  government and opposition would have to become serious. He added that should the court not ensure implementation of the law and leave the matter to the political parties.

“Should we [judges] turn a blind eye to the public’s interest?” he inquired.
The CJP observed that the government was bound to follow the court’s orders.
He continued that the court was exhibiting restraint but this should not be considered as its weakness.

The top judge maintained that the court would not hesitate from making sacrifices for ensuring the implementation of the law.

He added that the country's troops had made sacrifices and the judges were prepared to do that as well.
At this stage of the proceedings, Barrister Ali Zafar, who was representing the PTI, said his client PTI had agreed on holding polls across the country on the same day, but the only condition was that assemblies should be dissolved by May 14.

He added that the PTI's second condition was that elections should be held by the second week of July.

Zafar continued that the PTI's third condition was that the delay in elections should be legalised through a constitutional amendment.

The PTI lawyer also pointed out that May 14 was only a few days away but the funds for the elections had not been released yet.

Zafar maintained that the government could not file a petition to delay the polls and the points raised by the PPP lawyer were irrelevant.

The CJP told him that Naek had only pointed out the problems being faced in holding the polls.

Zafar said the elections could not be delayed any further because of the doctrine of necessity.

Later, Railways Minister and PML-N leader Khawaja Saad Rafique, while taking the rostrum, said he was not a lawyer and unaware of the etiquettes of speaking in court but he would simply speak the truth.

The minister maintained that the  institutions and political parties did not trust each other.

Rafique claimed that the judiciary had been “unfair” to his party since 2017. However, he added that the PML-N did not seek conflict among institutions, especially when the basic needs of the people remained unmet.

The minister highlighted the importance of transparency in the 90-day demand, in accordance with the Constitution.

He added that in the past, the country had faced disintegration because of the failure to accept the results of the polls.

He stressed the need for fair and democratic processes.
Rafique called for same-day elections across the country, warning of inevitable destruction if polls were held in just one province.

The minister said the assemblies in Sindh and Balochistan were very sensitive, making it difficult to dissolve both of them prematurely just for Punjab.

Rafique expressed gratitude to the PTI for engaging in talks “with an open heart” and suggested that the talks should continue.

He elaborated that complications arose when the court was dragged into political affairs.

The CJP told him that the judiciary was sitting with hands tied because the circumstances were not conducive.

The top judge noted that elections had taken place even during times of major wars.

He added that elections had taken place even during an earthquake in Turkiye.
The CJP told Rafique that it appeared from his words that he did not want to violate the Constitution.

The top judge observed that the remarks made about Punjab were political in nature, but they were not presented in writing to the court.

He continued that only the matters of funds and security were discussed in the court.

The CJP remarked that at the very least, the funds for the elections could have been released and advised that actions must be taken to demonstrate good governance.

The top judge observed that the court was given a briefing on security and then asked if there was any guarantee that the  situation would improve by October 8.
He added that only assumptions were being made about the date of the elections.

Giving his arguments, PTI’s Qureshi said the government, in its report, had not said anything new and only repeated its previous stance.

He added the PTI had tried its best to make the talks successful.

However, he continued that the treasury benches in parliament said things that were equivalent to violating the court’s orders.

The PTI stalwart said his party’s report submitted to the SC on Wednesday included the signatures of all the members of its negotiation team, while the government’s response only included Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s signatures.
To this, the CJP noted that the government’s report was submitted early morning in the day but the court still conducted a hearing on it.

The CJP observed that the government and PTI had no interest in holding negotiations.

He continued that the court only had to see if both the sides had agreed on a date for elections.

The CJP then inquired if a decision could be reached within two to three days.
Qureshi maintained that the coalition government had sought more time, saying that it comprised 12 parties. “But, [PTI chairman and deposed premier] Imran Khan and everyone else criticised why a gap of three days was given,” he disclosed.

The PTI senior leader said there was also no progress on the IMF deal.
However, the CJP remarked that the matter should not be discussed in court. Qureshi claimed that the country was  being pushed towards a constitutional crisis and urged the court to look into the PTI's stance.

The CJP told him that he had read his party’s stance.

The top judge added that proceedings could continue in the case in connection with holding elections in Punjab on May 14. He added that the government-PTI talks could again be held if both parties were interested.

Qureshi contended that the government was not showing any flexibility, recalling that the PTI had “sacrificed” its governments in Punjab and K-P.

He added that there was always an environment for negotiations.

Howeve, he maintained that the government was just trying to waste time.
The CJP noted that the court would issue an appropriate order, adding that the political parties could continue with the talks if they were interested.
The hearing was later adjourned.