The Supreme Court has rejected a plea of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to suspend the high court verdict regarding formation of election tribunals and also decided to form a larger apex court bench on the issue, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.
A two-judge bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Naeem Afghan on Thursday heard the ECP’s appeal against the high court’s decision and issued notice to the attorney general of Pakistan. The apex court also referred the matter to the relevant committee for the formation of a larger bench.
During the proceedings, CJP Qazi Isa remarked that the Constitution is very clear that the authority to form election tribunals lies with the Election Commission.
ECP’s lawyer Sikandar Bashir stated that the case involves the interpretation of Article 219(c) of the Constitution. Upon this, the CJP asked for a brief on the facts of the case, to which the ECP lawyer said that on February 14, the Election Commission wrote letters to all high courts for the formation of tribunals, as this is within the ECP’s authority.
The lawyer explained that lists of judges’ names were requested from all high courts via letters. The Lahore High Court provided the names of two judges on February 20, and both were notified for election tribunals. On April 26, two more judges were appointed as election tribunals.
The CJP stopped the lawyer when he used the term “respected” for the high court. Justice Isa remarked that “respected” is reserved for judges only. He inquired whether in England, the Parliament is referred to as “respected.”
He pointed out that in Pakistan, parliamentarians do not respect each other and often use abusive language. He questioned why the ECP is not referred to as “respected” and asked if it is not worthy of respect.
Subsequently, the ECP lawyer mentioned that there was no dispute until the formation of four tribunals. Justice Isa asked whether the Chief Election Commissioner and the Chief Justice could not meet. He questioned why everything in Pakistan has to be made controversial, citing the dispute over the election date between the President and the ECP. He wondered why the registrar of the high court was writing letters and suggested that if the Chief Justice and the Election Commissioner had met, a resolution might have been found.
Justice Naeem Afghan added that there was no dispute with any high court except the Lahore High Court, noting that tribunal proceedings in the Balochistan High Court were nearly complete.
Justice Isa expressed ire towards the ECP over the conduct of elections and the establishment of election tribunals, maintaining he could not understand why the ECP did not communicate with the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, as the Constitution does not prohibit such meetings.
Justice Isa also raised questions about the presidential ordinance issued by acting President Yousuf Raza Gilani. He remarked if governance is to be conducted through ordinances, then Parliament should be closed, stating bringing ordinances is an insult to Parliament. He reiterated that the authority to form election tribunals lies with the Election Commission as clearly stated in Article 219 section (c). He criticized the complexity created by Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution.
The ECP lawyer responded that he did not make the law and could not comment beyond generalities, and that he was not defending the ordinance. Justice Isa pointed out that he is responsible for cases in the Supreme Court and told the lawyer not to make excuses. The lawyer mentioned that there were about 62 judges in the Lahore High Court the last time he checked.
Justice Isa commented on the presidential ordinance concerning the formation of tribunals, questioning when the law for retired judges was made and how it could be changed through a presidential ordinance. He asked why an ordinance was brought after Parliament had already made a law, questioning the urgency that necessitated the ordinance. He suggested that the ordinance might interfere with the election process.
The lawyer explained that the ordinance was brought at the request of the cabinet and the prime minister. The CJP questioned whether the cabinet holds more significance than Parliament.
The ECP lawyer affirmed that the Parliament holds more significance. At this point, CJP Isa remarked that the ordinance contradicted the high court’s decision.
The CJP later stopped Salman Akram Raja from using the term “hand-picked” for judges.
He questioned whether there were reservations about some judges of the high court and asserted that such comments about the Lahore High Court would not be accepted.
He said that the term “hand-picked” was used in the ordinance and questioned the necessity of the ordinance after the Parliament had already made a law.
The CJP asked Salman Akram Raja whether the ordinance had been challenged. On it, Salman Akram Raja responded that the ordinance was challenged in the Lahore and Islamabad High Courts.
Reporter Ehtisham Kiyani