After ECP’s about-face, everyone is keeping a close eye on CJP.
Leading attorneys believe that there is a good likelihood that the Supreme Court will strike down the commission’s move as “constitutional overreach.”
ISLAMABAD:
Following the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) unexpected about-face on Wednesday to postpone the Punjab elections, which were initially planned on April 30, to October 8, all eyes are focused on Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial.
CJP Bandial had previously invoked suo motu power to hold general elections of both provincial assemblies within 90 days. CJP Bandial has already made it plain that the Supreme Court will intervene in the event the polls were delayed.
Now that the electoral watchdog has made its announcement, the SC may be in the driver’s seat once more, reigniting discussion about whether the high court, which was ideologically divided, would order the ECP and executive authorities to organize elections for two provincial assemblies right once.
The unexpected turn of events occurs at a time when some SC justices are allegedly accused of “tipping the scales” in favor of the PTI. This accusation is made in an allegedly leaked video by Muhammad Khan Bhatti, a former principal secretary to former chief minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi.
Another group of SC judges, on the other hand, opposed using suo motu jurisdiction in this case.
Prominent attorneys feel that CJP Bandial should convene a full court to hear the case involving the delay of elections in order to put a stop to issues.
A whole court should consider the situation and decide if the constitution or the “rule of the jungle” will govern the nation, according to Chaudhry Faisal Hussain, an attorney for PTI.
Another PTI attorney had the same sentiment as Hussain, saying that it was past time the Supreme Court’s judges put aside their egos and decided the case. He recalled that the five-member larger bench had ruled that the caretaker administration had no authority to spend public money beyond 120 days of its existence, therefore he pointed out that now the ability of the caretaker government to perform would also be questioned.
He questioned, “Now it needs to be seen as to how the Punjab administration functions in light of the constitution and SC judgement.”
Senior attorneys also concur that Justice Athar Minallah’s inquiries into the constitutionality of dissolving provincial assemblies should have been decided by the SC.
It is important to remember that the court said in its decision that Judge Minallah’s inquiries will be taken into account at any subsequent stage.
A top attorney said the inquiries were still pertinent.
According to the legal community, it would have been preferable for the PTI if the assemblies had been reinstated because that would have given it control over the largest province until the general election. Nonetheless, a group of attorneys referred to it as a “constitutional problem.”
They argued that the SC should abstain and, instead, require the political parties to resolve this situation. Yet, they concurred that the SC will no longer be able to be viewed as a “impartial arbiter”
The attorneys went on to say that because this case had evolved into a political issue, the top court’s contempt process in it ran the risk of further undermining public trust.
“SC put itself in a challenging situation. The LHC should have been let to finish its sessions without the sou moto being taken. Yet, the five members were rushing, and as a result, they hurt the institution, according to a lawyer.
They claimed that all political parties might gather for a political resolution to the issue if the supreme court stayed out of it.
“Blatant contempt for the constitution”
In response to the development, former senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar claimed that the ECP’s decision to postpone the elections was a flagrant violation of the constitution and that it was undoubtedly based on the desires of the ruling class, which is frightened of the elections.
“Sadly, ECP has lost all credibility with its already damaged reputation, he said.
“Overreach” of the Constitution
Commenting on the current situation, attorney Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar stated that such postponement and rescheduling could legally be considered to be constitutional overreach on the part of the commission and totally against the spirit and beyond their mandate given under the constitution in light of the clear provisions of Article 112 read with 224 (2) of the Constitution as well as in view of SC judgement.
He added that the Election Act of 2017 and constitutional clauses made it clear that the ECP had no authority to change the Punjab election schedule.
As stated explicitly in section 58 of the Election Act of 2017, if the election was to be revised, changed, or extended for any reason, the commission may only do so with the president’s prior approval and under no other circumstances.
The attorney stated that there was a good chance the Supreme Court would invalidate the ECP’s order once it was contested or brought to its attention regarding the court’s continuation of earlier proceedings.
The legal expert added that if all state institutions follow their legal mandates and carry out their duties in accordance with the spirit of the constitution, the nation can only advance from all angles, including those of political and economic stability.
