LHC’s Punjab ETs verdict: Review petition filed against SC judgment

ISLAMABAD: Salman Akram Raja, on Tuesday, filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s judgment setting aside the Lahore High Court’s verdict in constituting and allocation of Election Tribunals in the Punjab.

A five-judge bench, headed by former Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa set aside the LHC’s judgment and the notification issued by it for the constitution of Election Tribunals in the Punjab for disposal of the petitions regarding general elections 2024.

The judgment said; “Since the matter has been amicably resolved to the satisfaction of the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) adjudication was not called for, resultantly, the impugned judgment is set aside and also the notification dated 12 June 2024 issued pursuant thereto.”

A single bench of the LHC on May 29 held that under Article 219(c) read with Article 222(b) of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the High Court enjoyed primacy in the appointment of election tribunals under Section 140 of the Elections Act, 2017.

Raja filed the petition under Article 188 of the Constitution, while four candidates who had contested the General Elections 2024 from various constituencies for the National and Provincial Assemblies filed Intra-Court Appeal, under Section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.

They contended that the impugned judgement is in violation of the law, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

The petitioners said that the impugned judgment fails to acknowledge that by setting aside the LHC judgment and observing that it may not be cited before any Court, the apex court decided the legal issues raised in the petition filed by the appellants without giving them opportunity to argue or address those legal issues.

The petitioners said that the Supreme Court exclusively relied on a report from the registrar of the LHC dated 18 July 2024 without providing the appellants access to review or contest it and, therefore, infringes upon the appellants’ right to a fair hearing;

They said that the SC judgment sets an ambiguous precedent by requiring a face-to-face meeting between the ECP and the chief justice for “meaningful consultation,” a requirement unsupported by statutory or constitutional provisions, risking procedural inefficiency and undermining transparency.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024