Election postponement case: The simple question is whether the Election Commission can move the date forward or not, if allowed then the matter will be over: Supreme Court
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court is hearing the petition of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) against postponing the elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Punjab.
On the request of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, a 5-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandyal is re-hearing today.
When the hearing started today, the Chief Justice of Pakistan said that he did not want to hang this hearing for too long, according to yesterday's order, the jurisdiction of the Election Commission has to be looked at, the issue of political parties becoming parties will be looked at later, the rule of law and democracy are one. There are two sides to the same coin, nowadays the political level is very high, last day it was requested that the political parties should give assurance that there should be a situation of tolerance, patience, and peace among themselves.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan said that I personally think that we should not get into a legal dispute, we also have to restore social and political discipline, the Supreme Court is hearing the case with good intentions, and the parties have to decide which side to take the situation. Go, yesterday also said that the legal issue cannot be resolved in a vacuum, the constitution is a living document, and its interpretation can only be based on the ground conditions.
Lawyer Farooq H. Naik said that to determine what is best for democracy and the country in the current political and economic conditions, political parties are stakeholders, they must be heard.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel asked Farooq H. Naik why do you not take this point to Parliament? On this, Farooq H. Naik said that he is thinking of raising the matter in Parliament.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman said that in the order of March 1, 2 judges gave a decision.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandyal said that this is a separate case, my answer to the decision of March 1 is that the law empowers the President to give the date, if you want an explanation on the decision of March 1, then apply separately, simple question. Whether the Election Commission can advance the date or not, if the Election Commission is authorized, then the matter will be over.
The Attorney General said that if the court decision was four to three, then no order was violated, there was no court order, then the President could not even give a date, and the court order of March 1 should be fixed first.
Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal said that at this time the case should be dated and not canceled. Elections are necessary for democracy. Two respected judges have given a decision. Do not bypass the issue, the bench members sitting to consider the question raised in the petition, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not limited to the petition.
On this occasion, Attorney General Mansoor Usman requested to form a full court and said that the request is that this is an important matter and if the bench deems it appropriate to form a full court.
The decision of March 1 is about how many members it is an internal matter of the court: Justice Jamal
Justice Jamal Mandukhel said that the decision of March 1st is about how many members it is an internal matter of the Supreme Court, telling us whether the constitution requires elections to be held within 90 days or not. Can the Election Commission cancel the election date?
The Chief Justice said that he is grateful to Justice Jamal Mandukhel for clearing the matter.
The written order of hearing on the previous day
In the written order of the March 27 hearing, it has been stated that under the constitution, general elections must be held on time, and timely conduct of general elections honestly, fairly, and in accordance with the law is essential for democracy, errors, deficiency or failure in the conduct of general elections. Affects the public and their fundamental right to vote.
In the written order of the Supreme Court, it is said that according to the petitioner, the Election Commission canceled the date of the election of the President of the country, according to the petitioner, the Election Commission does not have the authority to cancel the date of the President, according to the petitioner, the Election Commission canceled the election. Postponed and took refuge behind Article 254.
The order further stated that Article 254 protects a process from becoming ineffective after the expiry of the prescribed period of judicial precedent, Article 254 does not protect adjournment of the process within the prescribed time, according to the petitioner on October 8. It has no constitutional support for postponing the elections.
According to the court order, the Supreme Court has issued notices to all the parties, and the Election Commission has been asked to respond to the legal questions raised in the Election Commission petition.
0 Comments
Thanks for your comments. Please keep in touch with us.