‘Better governance’: SC moved for local govt elections

Petitioner pleads that court direct provincial election commission, chief secretary to immediately announce schedule.


Our Correspondent July 19, 2013
The court is also requested to bind them to conduct elections either under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance of 1979 or SLGO 2000. PHOTO: FILE

KARACHI:


As the provincial bureaucracy seeks delays in local bodies’ elections, the Supreme Court has been asked to direct the Sindh government to announce a schedule immediately.


Rana Faizul Hasan, the general secretary of the United Human Rights Commission, went to the court against the provincial chief secretary, the provincial election commissioner and the secretaries of finance, local government and home departments.

He argued that it is binding on the authorities to form governments at district, taluka, town and union councils level by holding local bodies elections, under articles 32 and 140(A) of the Constitution, but they are not serious in conducting this exercise in Sindh. The Sindh High Court, while deciding a similar petition on May 18, 2010, had ordered the government to hold these elections within 90 days but the government had appealed against this order in the SC, which had upheld the high court order, Hasan pointed out.

He claimed that the Sindh government had not implemented the order despite the fact that the general elections had been held and voters’ lists were also available.

He pleaded the court direct the provincial election commission and the chief secretary to immediately announce the schedule. The court is also requested to bind them to conduct elections either under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance of 1979 or SLGO 2000, he requested.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 20th, 2013.

COMMENTS (1)

ashar | 7 years ago | Reply

Sind will remain silent on this issue I am sure because of vested interest of all the political parties.

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ