The Supreme Court of Pakistan has pointed to the flaws in the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) advice which he sent to the president about holding elections in the country, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial conducted the hearing on Wednesday about the ECP’s plea urging the apex court to revisit its April 4 order.
The CJP asked the ECP’s lawyer why the same-day elections advice was not forwarded to the president. “The ECP neither informed the president about the security situation nor about the funds issue. The ECP sought more powers without saying anything about Article 218(3) or 1970 elections.
Justice Bandial maintained that the ECP didn’t brief the president about the security measures or allocation of funds for elections. “Without mentioning the ground realities, more powers are being sought under Article 218(3),” he said, adding “When the Constitution gives powers, keep your eyes and mind open before using them.”
Stating emphatically that the Supreme Court could easily throw out the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) review petition, Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that the court instead wanted to give judgement after listening to legal arguments.
“We can easily say that you have missed the bus,” the chief justice said, adding, “However, we are not saying that. We want to analyse it from legal point of view before taking a decision.”
Sajeel Swati, counsel for the ECP, told the court that the commission had written a letter to the president on the court’s order.
The CJP told him that the ECP had not mentioned those points in the letter which it was mentioning now. “The commission had only asked the president to give date for election,” he said, and asked, “Why did not the ECP give advice to the president regarding elections on a single day?”
Similarly, he went on to say, neither the president was conveyed anything about security and the provision of funds.
Addressing the attorney general of Pakistan (AGP), the CJP asked him to tell the prime minister and others not to use insulting language against the apex court judges.
The CJP further said that when a seven-member bench was not the product of court’s order, then why hullabaloo was created that the SC’s verdict was by 4-3.
Reacting to the government’s criticism of the use of Mercedes by former prime minister and PTI Chairman Imran Khan, CJP Bandial made it clear that it was police, and not the SC, which had arranged the car for Imran. “But sadly it was propagated that the apex court had arranged the car for the PTI chairman,” he regretted.
Regretting that invoking article 184/3 had become frequent now, the chief justice admitted this might result in mistakes.
The CJP said he would seek the attorney general of Pakistan’s (AGP) opinion on whether the scope of court’s power of review should be curtailed or it should be expanded.
Speaking on the occasion, counsel for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) said that the SC had reviewed its decision in the judges’ case.
He went on to say that the review petition in the case of 16, 000 sacked employees had been rejected, but the court invoked articles 184/3 and 187.
Speaking to the ECP’s counsel, Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that if his contention was accepted then the apex court’s rules would become null and void. “If the scope is broadened, then many several years old cases will have to be revisited,” he added.
ECP’s lawyer replied that there should be time limit for filing a review petition.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan remarked that no time limit had been given in the constitution. “Can a review petition filed 20 years after the court’s verdict?” he questioned.
The election commission’s lawyer argued that laws change with the passage of time.
Justice Muneeb wondered how it was possible that Order 26 of the SC Rules concerning the ‘review’ was not applied completely.
He added that if the Order was not applied completely, then the time limit for filing a review petition would cease to exist.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan said that no deadline had been given in the constitution for filing the petition.
The CJP reminded the ECP’s lawyer that the election commission had assured the apex court that it was ready to hold elections provided funds and security were provided. “Now what is the legal status of all these points?” he questioned.
He added that the nine-member bench had raised some important points in its order. “It is unfortunate that instead of giving legal arguments, eyebrows were raised over the constitution of bench,” he recalled.
The court then adjourned hearing of the case until tomorrow, saying one of members of the bench has to attend to anohter case.
Reporter: Amanat Gishkori