In a long drawn-out series of events that has kept the entire nation on tenterhooks for almost a year now, the apex court has finally intervened and put its weight behind the constitution, making it binding on the authorities to abide by the constitutional provisions to call elections to a legislative assembly in the country.
The events in this week mostly revolved around general elections to the provincial assemblies in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Punjab provinces, by-elections to the National Assembly and local government elections in the federal capital.
In the first of the series of events, the Supreme Court has ordered that general elections in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Punjab provinces must be held in 90 days from the dissolution of the provincial legislatures and the Islamabad High Court’s hearing of a petition regarding holding local government election in Islamabad.
Following the courts’ decisions regarding the general elections in KP and Punjab and local government polls in the country’s capital, the major political parties have instructed their workers and leaders to brace up for elections.
A question arises here is that the law pertaining to elections is clear and understandable that the deadline for holding elections after assembly dissolution is 90 days. The political parties, especially the incumbent government in the center and the caretaker dispensations in the two provinces, have brought the situation to the current pass where the apex court had to intervene to protect the constitution. This laid bare the intention of the PDM government about the delaying elections on one pretext or the other.
After wasting time, it would be a hard job for the country’s election watchdog to abide by the ruling passed by the Supreme Court in terms of logistic and other preparations. Secondly, if elections are held in two provinces only, they can benefit some parties and put the nation at the receiving end in the face of a spiraling inflation.
The opportunity has presented itself to the apex court’s chief justice to form a full-court bench and put a firm end to the controversy created by the political parties’ mantra surrounding the suo motu notice.
It is unfortunate that the opportunity was foregone. Another pertinent question could also have been resolved with the present case: when and under what conditions an assembly should be dissolved?
A reasonable answer would have greatly helped reinforce the public’s right to representation, but the matter is unfortunately set aside.
Be that as it may, it is imperative for the government to now stop trying to delay the elections and enable the Election Commission to proceed with discharging its constitutional responsibility.
