Electoral reforms: SC seeks reply on election expenses
CJ stresses on the need of revising code of conduct for contesting elections.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court sought on Wednesday a reply from the federal government for electoral reforms, while hearing a petition seeking reduction of expenses in elections.
The petition was filed by Workers Party Pakistan president Advocate Abid Hasan Minto.
Attorney General of Pakistan Maulvi Anwarul Haq informed a three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, that the Election Commission of Pakistan had filed a reply to the petition.
The court, however, observed that the ECP is like the Supreme Court which can issue directives but implementation is the responsibility of the government.
Haq sought some time for instructions from the law ministry or other concerned quarters, in view of the importance of the petition and questions relating to the interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution and law.
Minto also insisted for a reply by the federal government, saying that it is ultimately the federation that is meant to implement and enforce laws.
He told the court that some political parties wanted to submit their suggestions on the matter, and had “no objection on the reduction of election expenditure”.
“The Election Commission has no objection to my petition either,” he told the court, while saying that his petition was filed in national interest. The case was adjourned till April 9.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 29th, 2012.
The Supreme Court sought on Wednesday a reply from the federal government for electoral reforms, while hearing a petition seeking reduction of expenses in elections.
The petition was filed by Workers Party Pakistan president Advocate Abid Hasan Minto.
Attorney General of Pakistan Maulvi Anwarul Haq informed a three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, that the Election Commission of Pakistan had filed a reply to the petition.
The court, however, observed that the ECP is like the Supreme Court which can issue directives but implementation is the responsibility of the government.
Haq sought some time for instructions from the law ministry or other concerned quarters, in view of the importance of the petition and questions relating to the interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution and law.
Minto also insisted for a reply by the federal government, saying that it is ultimately the federation that is meant to implement and enforce laws.
He told the court that some political parties wanted to submit their suggestions on the matter, and had “no objection on the reduction of election expenditure”.
“The Election Commission has no objection to my petition either,” he told the court, while saying that his petition was filed in national interest. The case was adjourned till April 9.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 29th, 2012.