• Court postpones hearing on petition contesting ECP’s decision to delay Punjab and KP elections till October 8

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday requested assurances from the government that the “political temperature” will be reduced. As a result, the hearing seeking the delay of the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections has been postponed to tomorrow (Thursday).

The confusion surrounding the March 1 order on the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa election schedule matter predominated as the hearing started today. In order to clear up the uncertainty, Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) attorney Farooq H Naek petitioned the Supreme Court to convene a full court for the hearing.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has filed the case in an effort to stop the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections from being delayed.

The hearing was presided over by a five-person court, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial. Justices Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar, Amin-Ud-Din Khan, and Jamal Khan Mandokhail are additional members of the bench.

In view of the Supreme Court’s divided decision from last month, the Imran Khan-led party had challenged the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision to postpone the Punjab elections till October 8 rather than the date set by President Arif Alvi.

As the financial and security agencies announced their unwillingness to support the election, the electoral board made its announcement.

The governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa then requested the electoral board to hold general elections on the same day (October 8) as the Punjab elections due to the mounting security risks posed by terrorist organisations operating in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border regions.

• Today’s Hearing

Judge Mandokhail addressed his comments from the prior hearing at the beginning of this one, stating that they had “greatly confused” people.

The judge stated that one section of the ruling dealt with administrative powers and added, “I stand by my detailed order.”

He declared that a judges’ committee will be established by the CJP to study the regulations governing administrative authority.

He had said yesterday that the number of judges who supported the March 1 decision was a matter for the Supreme Court.

He said that the judgement by the four justices was the court’s order, saying, “In the second portion of the verdict, four of us judges rejected the suo motu notice and petitions.”

Yet he said that CJP Bandial did not issue this order.

How could the election commission release the schedule? he questioned. “How did the president give a date when there wasn’t a verdict.”

Judge Mandokhail stated that “all the judges sign an order of the court.”

The ruling alliance’s attorneys then made their way to the podium.

Farooq H. Naek, a senior attorney, asked the court to convene a full court to discuss the March 1 judgment’s explanation.

In order to [fulfil] the criteria of justice, it must be determined whether the vote was split 4-3 or 3-2, Naek argued. He claimed that because the country is mired in a conundrum, the outcome would determine the fate of the entire country.

CJP Bandial then instructed the solicitor to submit his request in writing and issued a warning for defiling the court’s atmosphere.

The chief judge announced that the court will hear ECP’s arguments first and “[we] shall decide this question when there is a petition.”

Sajeel Swati, the solicitor for the ECP, questioned how the commission could publish an election calendar without having received a court order.

A Supreme Court order, according to him, is a court order that wasn’t even issued. He enquired as to whether the brief order had been seen by the ECP.

The solicitor argued at this point that they might have misunderstood the verdict.

Judge Akhtar meanwhile enquired as to whether the brief decision had specified that it was a 4-3 split decision. He asserted that the March 1 judgement makes no mention of a 4-3 split decision whatsoever.

“Having a difference of view is a judge’s right, but the minority of judges cannot claim under any legislation to include the majority,” Judge Akhtar said.

He added that five judges signed the decision after hearing the case in open court and rendering a verdict.

Judge Mandokhail intervened at this point to point out that the judges’ differing opinions were noted in the brief ruling.

“The dissenting note made it obvious that [we] concur with Justices Yahya Afridi and Athar Minallah’s ruling. Has their choice vanished into thin air? “He queried.

CJP Bandial intervened at this point, stating that topics pertaining to the chambers should be left where they belong and that Pakistan’s Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan will present his case.

However Judge Mandokhail enquired as to the ECP’s position about the specific judgement.

The solicitor admitted to the court that he had disregarded the electoral body’s advice regarding the 4-3 split decision.

• Twin Issues

The solicitor added that the electoral board began carrying out the court’s decision in accordance with its understanding and indicated the date in accordance with Section 57 of the Election Act after receiving it on March 3.

The lawyer responded that the order to postpone voting was given on March 22 in the evening, after all the work connected to scheduling and nomination documents had been completed.

The legal counsel for the ECP emphasised the nation’s security issues and informed the court of the army’s refusal to provide security during the elections as well as the agencies’ reports on terrorist threats in KP.

Swati responded that the electoral commission had notified the president about these concerns when CJP Bandial enquired about them.

The CJP said, “Reports about terrorism in KP are serious.

Judge Akhtar noted that the ECP was relying on letters from February 8 while the Supreme Court made its verdict public on March 8 at this point.

“You were aware in February that elections had to be held in October. Therefore why was the president given the date of April 30? “He queried.

At this point, the ECP’s attorney argued that although he had used the reports from the intelligence agencies as background, the decision to postpone the elections had actually been made on March 22.

He also told the court that the Finance Ministry had advised the ECP that it was not permitted to release cash for elections during the current fiscal year. Also, ECP was informed that the Punjab Police lacked the 297,000 security guards required for the elections.

• “Under All Conditions”

Judge Bandial continued by saying that the elections had to be held in 2023 regardless of what, and he questioned why money hadn’t been set aside for them in the annual budget.

The AGP argued at this point that the funding for the elections ought to be set aside for the following fiscal year. He continued by saying that they neglected to account for assemblies’ propensity to dissolve quickly.

The AGP responded to the CJP’s enquiry by stating that if all of the country’s elections are held, Rs47 billion will be spent, and if the provincial polls are held early, an additional Rs20 billion will be spent.

The ECP’s attorney also reemphasized the security risks that the public and political leaders face as a result of the increase in terrorist acts.

“The information you are providing is important. Why didn’t you notify the president of all of this? “Bandial CJP enquired. The president set the election date on the advice of the commission, hence it was ECP’s fault if he hadn’t been told of this.

Also, the ECP’s solicitor told the supreme court that it will take six months to finish the operations in Punjab’s kaccha (riverine) region.

The realness of the terrorism issue was acknowledged by CJP Bandial. He did note that the problem was not new, though.

When sectarianism and terrorism were at their height in the 1990s, polls had been held three times, he noted.

He noted that the ECP recommended the dates without informing the president of these details.

Judge Akhtar further questioned whether the ECP would conduct the elections with the support of the institutions.

He noted that the letters [threat alerts] appeared to be the foundation of the ECP’s entire argument, and that the lack of funding is also a problem.

The court then put the hearing on hold for a bit.

• Subsequent Hearing

The ECP attorney advised the bench when the hearing picked back up after the break that the new date of October 8 was not a temporary one. He continued by saying that the security services were concerned that terrorists might target certain places if elections were held in some of the regions.

The ECP lawyer stated that “the security services have stated that arrangements will be finished by the date (October 8)”.

Judge Akhtar said that the ECP is in charge of conducting elections on this aspect. He further stated that the ECP should have approached the court if it had any issues.

Justice Akhtar remarked that the election commission “shall explain why it differed the polls by six months.”

Judge Mandokhail noted that once an election date is chosen, the ECP is then authorised to hold elections.

In response, the ECP solicitor said that since the date had already been set, the ECP might prolong it.

Judge Ahsan pointed out that the ECP might alter the election schedule but not the election date.

The judge questioned, “Is Section 58 of the Election Act superior to the Constitution?”

But, CJP Bandial concurred with Judge Akhtar that the ECP ought to have gotten in touch with the supreme court, and he urged the solicitor to persuade the bench by today.

Is October 8 a special day that ensures everything will be fine? Why couldn’t the election be held on August 8 or September 8? I questioned the CJP.

The ECP’s lawyer claimed ignorance of the delicate nature of the situation when asked by the bench why the poll date was fixed for April when the commission was already aware that it would not be viable.

The commission’s solicitor was subsequently reprimanded by Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan for failing to inform the president of the situation, despite the fact that it was the ECP’s responsibility to do so.

The new election schedule hadn’t been announced, the chief justice continued.

In response, the legal representative for the ECP claimed that the legislation also promised protection of life in addition to free and fair elections.

According to him, “the court can only invalidate the ECP’s order if it is unconstitutional and motivated by malice.”

When asked if the petitioner had brought up the issue of malice, ECP’s solicitor Sajeel responded that it had not.

Judge Munib reaffirmed the ECP’s duty to conduct free and on-time elections. He further enquired as to whether, in the event that all the assemblies were dissolved, the ECP would abdicate its duty to conduct elections.

The election could be held on April 30 if the necessary funds and security were arranged, according to the ECP counsel.

“By court decision, elections in 1988 were postponed. We pray that the scenario of 2008 is not repeated because at the time, no one objected to delaying the polls.

The ECP counsel continued by emphasising that Article 218-3 of the Constitution emphasised the value of free and transparent elections.

The ECP’s solicitor responded to the CJP’s assertion that small disagreements are to be expected by saying that the poll organising authority was concerned that violence may break out.

The CJP then shifted his focus to a different subject.

While the Supreme Court’s order is also available, he said, “Overseas Pakistanis want the right to vote, yet the commission has done nothing about it.”

The government was then asked by the CJP if the six-month timeframe might be shortened.

The ECP attorney’s argument came to an end at this point.

The registrar’s office accedes to the ruling alliance’s requests to join the case

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the Pakistan Peoples Party, and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) had previously each submitted a separate request to the SC Registrar’s Office to join the case as parties.

A day earlier, the coalition administration had made the decision to join the case as a party.

As the session picks back up, the members of the ruling coalition will argue their case. They had filed petitions with the SC to join a party.