The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing on the election delay issue until tomorrow.
The apex court has asked assurances from the government on lowering the “political temperature”
The court’s March 1 order was vigorously contested by the five-member bench at today’s session as to whether it was issued with a 4-3 majority or 3-2.
A day after the National Assembly passed a tough resolution declaring “undue meddling by the judiciary in political matters as a cause of political instability in the country,” confusion arose after the SC began the hearing of the election delay case.
The ECP’s order to postpone the polls in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was challenged by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on numerous grounds.
The appeal is being heard by a larger SC bench that is led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and includes Justices Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar, Amin-Ud-Din Khan, and Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
Judge Mandokhail addressed his comments from the prior hearing at the beginning of this one, stating that they had “greatly confused” people.
The judge stated that one section of the judgment dealt with administrative powers and added, “I stand by my detailed order.”
He declared that a judges’ committee will be established by the CJP to study the regulations governing administrative authority. He said that the ruling by the four justices was the court’s order, saying, “In the second portion of the verdict, four of us judges rejected the suo motu notice and petitions.”
Yet he claimed that CJP Bandial did not issue this court order. How could the election commission release the schedule? He questioned. “How did the president give a date when there wasn’t a verdict?”
He continued by saying that although they may look at the court’s records file, it did not contain the order of the court. Judge Mandokhail stated that “all the judges sign an order of the court.”
The ECP lawyer responded that the order to postpone voting was given on March 22 in the evening, after all the work connected to scheduling and nomination documents had been completed.
ECP attorneys said that they had informed the President of these matters when CJP Bandial questioned whether the electoral commission had done so. The army’s refusal to provide security and confidential agency reports on terrorist threats in KP was subsequently brought up in front of the court.
The CJP said, “Reports about terrorism in KP are serious.”
Judge Akhtar noted that the ECP was relying on letters from February 8 while the Supreme Court made its verdict public on March 8 at this point.
Justice Bandial continued by saying that the elections had to be held in 2023 regardless of what, and he enquired as to whether or not money had been set aside for them in the annual budget.
At this point, AGP insisted that the funding for the elections ought to be set aside for the following fiscal year. He continued by saying that they neglected to account for assemblies’ propensity to dissolve quickly.
In response to a question from the CJP, the AGP estimated that holding national elections as a whole would cost Rs47 billion and that holding provincial elections early would cost an additional Rs20 billion.
ECP’s attorney continued the discussion by claiming that political figures were subject to security risks not just on Election Day but also during the campaign because militants had been planning and carrying out terrorist operations from Afghanistan since the US withdrawal.
“The information you are providing is important. Why didn’t you notify the president of all of this?” Bandial CJP enquired.
Also, the ECP’s solicitor told the court that it will take six months to finish the activities in Punjab’s kacha area.
The ECP attorney advised the bench when the hearing picked back up after the break that the new date of October 8 was not a temporary one. He continued by saying that the security authorities were concerned that terrorists might attack certain places if elections were held in some of the regions.
The ECP lawyer stated that “the security services have stated that arrangements will be finished by the date (October 8)”.
In response to this, Judge Akhtar said that the ECP should not try to avoid its duty to conduct elections. He further stated that the ECP should have approached the court if it had any issues.
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing till Thursday.
