AGL 22.90 Decreased By ▼ -1.83 (-7.4%)
AIRLINK 103.99 Decreased By ▼ -7.11 (-6.4%)
BOP 5.36 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-3.25%)
CNERGY 3.86 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-1.03%)
DCL 8.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.43 (-5.09%)
DFML 39.10 Decreased By ▼ -3.15 (-7.46%)
DGKC 86.95 Decreased By ▼ -2.65 (-2.96%)
FCCL 22.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-0.87%)
FFBL 40.59 Decreased By ▼ -1.39 (-3.31%)
FFL 8.89 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-1.66%)
HUBC 153.50 Decreased By ▼ -8.70 (-5.36%)
HUMNL 10.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.70 (-6.17%)
KEL 4.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-4.81%)
KOSM 3.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-3.94%)
MLCF 37.50 Decreased By ▼ -1.45 (-3.72%)
NBP 49.00 Decreased By ▼ -1.60 (-3.16%)
OGDC 134.15 Decreased By ▼ -2.96 (-2.16%)
PAEL 26.15 Decreased By ▼ -2.40 (-8.41%)
PIBTL 6.07 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-2.88%)
PPL 116.79 Decreased By ▼ -6.01 (-4.89%)
PRL 23.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.75 (-3.09%)
PTC 12.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.84 (-6.11%)
SEARL 57.25 Decreased By ▼ -2.80 (-4.66%)
TELE 7.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.31 (-3.99%)
TOMCL 35.74 Decreased By ▼ -3.66 (-9.29%)
TPLP 8.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-2.97%)
TREET 15.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.52 (-3.21%)
TRG 56.40 Decreased By ▼ -3.60 (-6%)
UNITY 33.40 Decreased By ▼ -1.00 (-2.91%)
WTL 1.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-3.28%)
BR100 8,433 Decreased By -274.3 (-3.15%)
BR30 26,639 Decreased By -1159 (-4.17%)
KSE100 80,118 Decreased By -1722 (-2.1%)
KSE30 25,681 Decreased By -584.1 (-2.22%)

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court dismissed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)’s review petition against its judgment on holding general elections in the Punjab on May 14.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar, on Thursday, heard the ECP’s plea to revisit the SC judgment.

This bench on April 4 had quashed the ECP’s decision to extend the date for polls in the province from April 10 to October 8 and fixed May 14 as the new date.

It had also directed the government to release Rs 21 billion for the elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and provide a security plan to the ECP regarding the polls. The federal and the provincial government expressed their inability to provide the funds and security for the polls in the Punjab and KP. The Commission on May 3, 11 days before the expiry of the Court deadline (May 14) filed a review petition against the April 4 order.

At the onset of the hearing, Sajeel Swati, representing the ECP, argued that after the amendments in Sections 57 and 58 of the Elections Act 2017, the power now rests with the ECP. However, Justice Munib told him that this is a review petition, therefore, donot raise points that were not raised in the original case.

“Tell us from the record about the error floating on the surface of the judgment,” he asked the counsel.

Swati said that the Constitution did not give the ECP the “authority but rather the responsibility”.

“The changing of the date by the president is an important legal point,” he added.

The CJP said the ECP had to use constitutional powers to fulfil constitutional responsibilities. He said that the court would intervene whenever there was a constitutional violation because the “Constitution was not someone’s property.” “No institution can transgress the Constitution and under the Constitution, the ECP is bound to hold elections within 90 days,” he added.

Justice Munib observed; “It [is] not a turf war, it’s constitution, which belongs to the people of Pakistan.”

In its plea, the ECP said changing the election programme was the solitary domain of the commission under Section 58 of the Elections Act, 2017.

It asked the court to take back its April 4 judgement “in the interest of justice,” emphasising that Article 254 should be used to stultify the constitutional imperative of holding the elections within 90 days, but the apex court should also look at the ground realities. The provision suggested that failure to comply with requirements as to time does not render an act invalid.

“All provisions of the Constitution are required to be read together in harmony to make the provisions effective, workable, and meaningful,” the review petition argued and added the April 4 order by the SC was “per incuriam” (lack of jurisdiction) to the Constitution; therefore, it needs to be revisited.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Comments

Comments are closed.