ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the government to give assurance it would take steps to lower the feverish political temperature in the country, before adjourning the hearing of the PTI petition against the election delay case till tomorrow (Thursday).
During today’s hearing, the five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, hotly debated whether the court’s March 1 order was given with a 4-3 majority or 3-2.
The confusion emerged after the SC resumed the hearing of the election delay case today, a day after a hard-hitting resolution was passed by the National Assembly holding “undue interference by the judiciary in political matters as a cause of political instability in the country”.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has filed a petition against the ECP’s March 22 order postponing the elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa citing multiple reasons.
The bench comprises Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail as members.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Mandokhail clarified his remarks from the previous hearing, saying that it had caused “great confusion”.
“I stand by my detailed order,” the justice said, explaining that one part of the judgment was about the administrative powers.
He said that the CJP would be asked to form a judges’ committee to look into the rules of administrative powers.
“In the second part of the verdict, four of us judges rejected the suo motu notice and pleas,” he said, adding that the judgment by the four judges was the order of the court.
He however, stated that this order of the court was not issued by CJP Bandial.
“How did the president give a date when there wasn’t a verdict, how did the election commission issue the schedule,” he asked.
He further stated that they can check the file of court’s records, it doesnt have the order of the court.
“An order of the court is signed by all the judges,” Justice Mandokhail declared.
After this, the lawyers of the ruling alliance proceeded to the rostrum.
Senior lawyer Farooq H Naek requested the court to form a full court for the clarification of the March 1 judgment.
“It is necessary to [fulfill] the requirements of justice that it is decided that whether it was a 3-2 or 4-3 split verdict,” Naek maintained. He said that the entire country’s luck depends on this matter as the nation is stuck in a dilemma.
The matter of jurisdiction should be decided first, Naek added.
At this, CJP Bandial directed the lawyer to submit his request in written and warned against spoiling the court’s environment.
“[We] will decide this matter when there is a petition,” the chief justice said while announcing that the court will hear ECP’s arguments first.
ECP’s lawyer Irfan Qadir appeared before the court upon CJP Bandial’s inquiry.
Starting his arguments, Qadir said that it was his first appearance in the case.
CJP Bandial asked him that ECP had to submit the documents today.
At this, the lawyer said that there was a procedure for that and “why is the court in a rush”.
CJP Bandial then directed him to give his arguments if he hadn’t brought the documents.
“You are superseding other lawyer,” he said.
At this, Qadir said that he was leaving the rostrum and the court can do whatever it wanted and select the lawyer as per its will.
CJP Bandial remarked that Hamid Ali Shah and Sajeel Swati had appeared on behalf of ECP in the previous hearing.
At this, Qadir left the courtroom, with Swati proceeding to the rostrum for arguments.
Moving on Justice Mandokhail asked how did the ECP issue an election schedule when it did not receive the order of the court.
“A Supreme Court order is the order of the court, which wasn’t even issued,” he said. He also asked if the ECP had seen the brief order.
At this, the lawyer maintained that they might have made a mistake in understanding the judgment.
Meanwhile, Justice Akhtar inquired if the brief verdict stated it was a 4-3 split verdict. He said that the March 1 judgment does not state anywhere that it is a 4-3 split verdict.
“Having a difference of opinion is the right of the judge but minority of judges cannot claim to be inclusive of the majority under any law,” Justice Akhtar observed.
He further stated that five judges heard the case in an open court and signed the order after issuing the verdict.
At this point, Justice Mandokhail interjected that the brief verdict stated that the judges gave their dissenting notes.
“The dissenting note clearly stated that [we] agree to the decision of Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Athar Minallah. Did their decision disappeared into thin air,” he asked.
At this, CJP Bandial interjected that the matter related to the chambers should be left where they belong and said that Attorney General of Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan will give his arguments on the matter.
However, Justice Mandokhail asked what is the ECP’s stance on the detailed verdict
The lawyer informed the court that he had not taken the electoral body’s directive over the 4-3 split verdict.
The lawyer maintained that the electoral body started implementation on the court’s order as per its understanding and suggested the date as per Section 57 of Election Act after it was received on March 3.
When asked about the time of ECP’s order to postpone polls, the lawyer said that it was issued on the evening of March 22, by the time all the work related to scheduling and nomination papers had been wrapped up.
He then informed the court about army’s refusal of providing security and sensitive agencies reports on terrorist threats in KP.
As CJP Bandial asked if the election commission informed the president about these issues, Swati said that they had.
“Reports about terrorism in KP are serious,” the CJP remarked.
At this, Justice Akhtar remarked that the ECP was relying on the letters of February 8 while the apex court announced the decision on March 8
“In February, you knew that you had to conduct elections in October. Then why was the date of April 30 suggested to the president,” he asked.
At this, ECP’s lawyer maintained that he had referred to the intelligence agencies’ reports as a background but the decision to defer the polls was taken on March 22.
He informed the court that the Finance Ministry told the ECP that they can’t issue funds for polls in the current fiscal year. Moreover, ECP was told that the Punjab Police lacked 297,000 security personnel needed for the polls.
