The Supreme Court on Monday issued a detailed judgment in the suo motu case pertaining to the delay in elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,” reported the 24NewsHD TV channel.
The 57-page judgment, which also includes 14 pages of dissenting notes, has been written by Justice Muneeb Akhtar. The judgment says that elections should be held as prescribed in the Constitution. Every assembly has the status of a separate unit and the Constitution provides a complete mechanism for fresh elections if an assembly is dissolved before the completion of its term.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial had initially formed a nine-member larger bench to hear the case.
The detailed judgment says the nine-member larger bench conducted the first hearing in this case on February 23 and then held a meeting in the tea room.
At the meeting, all nine judges made a unanimous decision, which was announced on February 27. In the detailed judgment, a reference has been given to the order to reconstitute the bench.
The judgment says the chief justice formed only two benches; first a nine-member bench and then a five-member bench.
The verdict says it’s wrong to say that it was a 4-3 verdict. It says how can it be called a 4-3 judgment when a seven-member bench was not formed at all.
There is no reference to any other bench in this case.
Justice Munib Akhtar wrote in the judgment that the judges who signed the February 27 order – Justice Athar Minallah, and Justice Yahya Afridi – had left it to the chief justice to decide if they should remain on the bench or not.
He said that parliamentary democracy was an integral part of the Constitution. He said there was no concept of parliamentary democracy without the parliament and the assemblies.
According to the judgment, the Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial constituted the first 9-member larger bench on the election issue.