![chief justice iftikhar mohammad chaudhry photo file chief justice iftikhar mohammad chaudhry photo file](https://i.tribune.com.pk/media/images/618366-cj-1381807871/618366-cj-1381807871.jpg)
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Monday said the government functionaries would have to face the consequences if court’s orders to hold local bodies (LB) polls were not carried out.
He was heading a three-judge bench hearing a constitutional petition in Supreme Court Lahore Branch Registry against non-holding of local governments’ election by the provincial governments.
The bench ordered all the four provincial governments to come up with a clear-cut date for holding LB election and sought progress report on the court’s different orders pertaining to Local Bodies’ elections.
![](https://pullquotesandexcerpts.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/11104.jpg?w=625)
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) Secretary Ishtiaq Ahmed, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) advocate general and Punjab Additional Advocate General Hanif Khatana appeared before the court.
The ECP informed the bench that three provinces –Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan– had laid down the relevant law and rules for holding LB elections. “But the K-P has neither outlined the relevant laws nor has done delimitation exercise,” the bench was told.
The CJ said the political parties were violating their party manifestos by not holding the LB elections, adding that during general elections, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had promised to hold Local Bodies’ election within 90 days.
During the course of hearing, the CJ showed annoyance over inordinate delay on the part of provincial governments and said no one would be allowed to violate constitution and law. “It seems that no one is ready to follow the constitution and law,” the CJP remarked.
Justice Khawaja, also a member of the bench, said courts or judges had no personal interest in holding the LB polls. “We only want the enforcement of law,” he said.
![](https://pullquotesandexcerpts.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/1245.jpg?w=625)
Justice Shaikh Azmat Saeed – the third member of the bench – said it was hard to delegate powers to others. “But the provincial governments should show openheartedness in this regard.”
On ECP’s request to grant more time to complete homework for elections, Justice Khawaja showed his annoyance and said no effort had been made in one and half year to hold the polls. The court was adjourned till October 21.
In a related development, a division bench of the Lahore High Court sought reply from Punjab government on the objections over delimitation of constituencies for LB election in province.
As hearing started, the PTI counsel told the court that the Punjab government was conducting delimitation which was the job of ECP. He said Punjab government is doing delimitation with mala fide intention just to give undue favour to its favourites. The court will resume hearing by October 18.
SC disposes of plea for LG election in Sindh
The Sindh government on Monday assured the Supreme Court that it was committed to conducting the much demanded LB election in the province.
Sindh Advocate General Khalid Jawed Khan made this submission before a two-judge bench, during hearing a petition seeking direction for the Sindh government to hold LB elections in the province.
Rana Faizul Hasan, general secretary of the United Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, had gone to the court against delays in the LB polls.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 15th, 2013.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
As a citizen of pakistan,we must respect the court orde.government is not sincer to carry on the court orders which has repeatedly issued in regard to holding the local bodies election in the country. State constitution does not permitte any governent to overlook the local body's election to extent which approach to constitutional violation. Inordinate delay in this connection is acceptable but dalaying tactis has been adopted and being adopted on which court has taken strict action.
What will be consequences court has not clarified but the fact is that it does not go in favoure of the government