Home TRENDING ECP APPEALS SC’s MAY 14 PUNJAB ELECTION ORDER.

ECP APPEALS SC’s MAY 14 PUNJAB ELECTION ORDER.

ECP APPEALS SC's MAY 14 PUNJAB ELECTION ORDER.

SHARE

The Election Commission of Pakistan has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arguing that it has the exclusive authority to provide election schedules under Section 58 of the Elections Act.

Election Commission of Pakistan. PHOTO: AFP/FILE

On Wednesday, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) petitioned the Supreme Court of Pakistan in ISLAMABAD for a review of its order to hold elections in Punjab on May 14.

In its petition, the ECP said that Section 58 of the Elections Act, 2017 gave it exclusive authority over alterations to poll schedules.

The panel further stated that the order violated the law, precedent, and the Constitution “per incuriam” (without regard to the law or the facts).

While the ECP acknowledged that the Supreme Court “could have apportioned responsibility to the commission,” they argued that it “should have exercised judicial restraint.”

The administration had been seeking to prolong the provincial votes claiming security difficulties and the economic crisis, but the Supreme Court deemed the Election Commission of Pakistan’s decision to postpone the elections in Punjab until October as “unconstitutional” last month.

The provincial elections would be held on May 14 as well, according to a three-judge panel presided over by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and included Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ijazul Ahsan.

Despite criticism from PTI leader and former prime minister Imran Khan, on March 22 the ECP announced a five-month postponement of provincial assembly elections in strategically pivotal Punjab province, claiming a worsening security situation in the cash-starved country.

Imran has been pushing for early elections ever since he was removed from office in a vote of no confidence in April of last year.

As leader of the ruling coalition, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has refused to budge from his insistence that elections be held all at once later this year.

In its appeal, the election watchdog argued that the court had no authority to set the election date without amending the Constitution or passing new legislation.

The scope of the authority (vested in the public bodies) can be defined by the higher courts. The superior courts may never assume the functions of the government. In all due respect, it also noted that the Constitution does not give superior courts the authority to set election dates.

It went on to say that such authority was vested elsewhere in the Constitution, and not in a court of law.

“appointing of date or changing it, is an executive exercise, and certainly not a judicial exercise,” the committee added.

“The ECP appears to simply have no choice, given the strict timeline to meet for the elections, but to accept as a fate accompli, a security plan which may be compromising the integrity, honesty, and fairness of the elections,” the petition continued.

A “strong and empowered commission” was also highlighted by the election monitor.

According to the ECP, the Supreme Court’s ruling from April 4 “has actually divested the powers of the commission to itself,” rendering the ECP “virtually toothless” and showing a “complete disregard for its constitutional jurisdiction.”

The ECP noted in the appeal, “It is not suggested that Article 254 of the Constitution should be used to stultify the constitutional imperative of holding elections within 90 days.”

There was an emphasis on the “trichotomy of power” in the appeal.

It maintained that the separation of powers between the several branches of government was the “hallmark of the Constitution” and a “essential sine qua non” for the country’s well-being.

“This deeply rooted constitutional notion separates the three organs so that each one cannot intrude on the sphere of responsibility of the others. It was pointed out that the judiciary had been given the right to evaluate executive decisions and acts in court but was prohibited from using executive power itself.

In its March 1 order regarding the holding of elections to the Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa assemblies within 90 days, the apex court cited Section 57 of the Elections Act, 2017 to designate the president as authority for the appointment of date where the assemblies stood dissolved by efflux of time. The ECP argued that this section of the law gave the president the authority to appoint the date of elections.

With an eye towards the time-honored principle of trichotomy of powers, the Supreme Court said, “The Hon’ble Supreme Court identified an authority for announcing the date for the general elections (i.e. the president) by interpreting the Constitution as well as the law and restraining itself from appointing a poll date.”

With all due respect, the order under review [April 4] also runs counter to the spirit of the order dated 01.03.2023 in which this august court found the repository of the power being president under Section 57 of the Constitution to appoint a poll[s] date for general elections in cases where the assemblies stood dissolved by efflux of 48 hours. To add insult to injury, the commission said that “it is also inconceivable why this Hon’ble Court took upon itself the task of appointing a poll[s] date, which certainly is not the constitutional function, respectfully submitted, assigned to the judicial organ of the state.”

The watchdog organisation for elections asked the Supreme Court to “accept the instant review petition by revisiting, reviewing, reconsidering, and recalling its April 4 order.”

SHARE