Islamabad
\nThe Supreme Court will announce its verdict on the PTI\u2019s petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan\u2019s (ECP) decision to postpone polls to the Punjab Assembly till Oct 8 on Tuesday (tomorrow).
\nA three-member bench \u2014 comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar \u2014 reserved the judgment today after hearing all the parties, including the government, the PTI, the ECP and others. However, it did not hear the counsels of the coalition parties.
\nThe hearings in the case, which lasted over a week, witnessed high drama after two judges of the original five-member bench \u2014 Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Aminuddin Khan \u2014 recused themselves from hearing the case. Thereafter, the CJP constituted a bench comprising himself, Justice Ahsan and Justice Akhtar to proceed with the PTI petition.
\nEarlier today, the government submitted a statement through Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, requesting the formation of a full court to hear the case. It also sought the dismissal of the PTI petition in the light of what it interpreted as a \u201c4-3\u201d order issued by the apex court on March 1.
\nThe apex court, had in a 3-2 verdict, ruled on March 1 that elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab \u2014 both of which have been under caretaker governments since the provincial assemblies were dissolved in January \u2014 should be held within 90 days.
\nThe government, however, had disputed with the court directions, calling the verdict 4-3 instead after Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah \u2014 who were among the four judges who had written additional notes in the Feb 23 order \u2014 raised objections on the constitution of the bench as well as the invocation of the apex court\u2019s suo motu jurisdiction by the chief justice.
\nHowever, the CJP rejected the government\u2019s request for a full court and instead suggested that a larger bench could be sought.
\nDuring the hearing today, the secretaries of the finance and defence ministries briefed the court and submitted their respective reports.
\n\u2018Government cannot boycott proceedings\u2019
\nAGP Awan, ECP lawyers Irfan Qadir and Sajeel Swati, PTI lawyer Ali Zafar, and PPP counsel Farooq H. Naek were present in the courtroom as the hearing commenced today.
\nThe secretaries of finance and interior ministries were also in attendance.
\nAt the outset of the hearing, Naek came to the rostrum. Justice Bandial asked the lawyer if PPP had ended its boycott against the court hearing to which the latter replied that he had not boycotted the proceedings.
\n\u201cHow can you boycott [the hearing] on one side and also attend the hearing on the other hand,\u201d Justice Akhtar wondered. \u201cFor the last 48 hours, the media has been saying that political parties have expressed no confidence in the bench.
\n\u201cHow will you present your arguments if you don\u2019t have confidence in us?\u201d the judge asked and then stated that the court would only hear Naek if he withdrew the statement \u2014 jointly issued by coalition leaders last week expressing \u201ccomplete no-confidence\u201d in the bench.
\nJustice Akhtar also asked Naek to read out the joint statement and expressed displeasure at the language used in it.
\nHere, the CJP asked the PPP lawyer if he wanted to become a part of the proceedings, to which Naek replied in the affirmative and said that \u201cwe never boycotted the hearing\u201d.
\n\u201cBut something else was written in the newspapers,\u201d Justice Bandial highlighted. Naek replied that his party had reservations on the maintainability of the petition.
\nHowever, the CJP insisted that Naek confirmed in writing that he had not boycotted the hearing.
\nTurning to the AGP, Justice Bandial then inquired about the directions he had received, to which Awan replied that the government worked under the Constitution and could not boycott the proceedings.
\n\u2018Only court has authority to delay polls\u2019
\nSubsequently, AGP Awan began presenting his arguments. The lawyer highlighted that the PTI petition was based on the SC\u2019s March 1 verdict, in which the apex court had instructed the president to select a date for elections in Punjab and the governor to pick a date for polls in KP.
\n\u201cBut the KP governor never selected a date until the petition was filed,\u201d he pointed out.
\n\u201cThe question is how can the ECP give the date of Oct 8 for polls,\u201d the CJP said here. \u201cThe law gives no one the authority to delay elections. Only the court can delay the date for polls.
\n\u201cEven in 1988, elections were postponed on the orders of the court,\u201d he recalled, adding that court orders were issued on the basis of \u201cground realities\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe order you are mentioning here [SC\u2019s March 1 verdict] has already been executed,\u201d Justice Bandial pointed out.
\nJustice Ahsan observed that the actual matter under consideration was the ECP\u2019s decision to postpone elections, noting that the commission was bound to follow the court orders.
\nHere, AGP Awan recalled that during the first round of the hearings \u2014 the court\u2019s suo motu proceedings on elections in Punjab and KP \u2014 a nine-member bench had conducted the proceedings.
\n\u201cOn Feb 21, we received the order of the court which included dissenting notes from two judges. The two judges had dismissed the case in the first hearing,\u201d he said.
\nHowever, the CJP interjected and said that only one judge had dismissed the proceedings. \u201cJustice Athar Minallah had not mentioned rejecting the request in his dissenting note,\u201d he said.
\n\u201cJustice Yahya Afridi had agreed with Justice Minallah in his note,\u201d the AGP argued to which Justice Bandial stated that the court had understood Awan\u2019s stance.
\nJustice Akhtar recalled that on February 27, a nine-member bench had forwarded the matter to the CJP for the reconstitution of the bench with Justice Ahsan adding that when the bench was reconstituted it consisted of five judges.
\nThe AGP agreed to the judge\u2019s observation.
\nMeanwhile, the CJP clarified that he was not obligated to select the previous members and pointed out that the order the AGP was referring to was a minority judgement.
\nFor his part, the AGP argued that an order of the court was not issued on March 1 to which Justice Bandial asked if Awan believed that a five-member bench was never constituted.<\/p>\n
\u2018Harmony among judges crucial for SC\u2019
\nAt one point during the hearing, the CJP noted that harmony among judges was crucial for the Supreme Court. He observed that while judicial proceedings were made public, consultations among judges were considered internal matters.
\nOn the other hand, Justice Akhtar stated that if the \u201clogic behind the 4-3 verdict\u201d were accepted, the matter would be referred to the same nine-member bench that was first constituted to hear the elections suo motu proceedings.
\nHe added that the decision then would either be of the five-member bench or the nine-member bench.
\nJustice Bandial pointed out that the detailed dissenting notes of the judges did not include any points about the reconstitution of the bench.
\nHere, the AGP \u2014 while quoting the notes \u2014 stated that the bench\u2019s reformation was an administrative move, and Justices Ahsan and Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi had distanced themselves from the suo motu hearing.
\nThe CJP clarified that four judges had recused themselves from the bench, adding that it would have been more accurate to mention in the note that they were removed from the bench.
\nJustice Bandial pointed out that the note did not specify which judges had voluntarily separated from the bench, adding that when a judge wanted to withdraw a bench, they had to submit a judicial note.
\n\u201cThere is no doubt in the fact that a judge can\u2019t be thrown out of a bench,\u201d he stated, adding that when the court ordered the reconstitution of a bench, it did not mean that other judges were being removed from the bench.
\nJustice Ahsan said here that forming a new bench was a judicial directive and not an administrative one.
\nBut the AGP argued that the opinion of the two judges \u2014 Justices Mandokhail and Shah \u2014 could not be separated. Justice Akhtar responded by citing Justice Afridi\u2019s statement which stated that he had left his inclusion in the bench to the chief justice\u2019s discretion.
\nJustice Akhtar also pointed out that the absence of the two judges was not brought up during the two-day suo motu hearing conducted by the five-member bench.
\nThe CJP stated that a new bench was formed and the hearing began again. Additionally, it was noted in a footnote that the opinion of the two judges was not part of the decision record.
\nHe further stated that the AGP had not succeeded in convincing the court to separate the judges who previously heard the case from the current bench.
\nHere, the AGP mentioned a circular issued by the SC registrar\u2019s office in response to a judgement issued by Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Khan on March 29.
\nIn the 12-page order, the judges had called for the postponement of suo motu matters until amendments were made to Supreme Court Rules 1980 regarding the country\u2019s top judge\u2019s discretionary powers to form benches.
\nSubsequently, in a circular issued on March 30, the CJP disregarded the judgement stating that the \u201cunilateral assumption of judicial power in such a manner\u201d was a violation of rules.
\nReferring to the circular during the hearing today, AGP Awan argued that a judicial order or judgment could not be overruled by an administrative circular to which the CJP replied that the circular did not overrule any decisions.
\nHe clarified that the circular had instead issued administrative instructions for the judgement. Justice Bandial went on to mention another circular that halted proceedings for cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and clarified that the circular did not violate the decision of the five-member bench.
\n\u201cThere were no clear directives in the order issued by Justice Isa,\u201d Justice Bandial added.
\nThe AGP argued that rules regarding petitions were present in Article 184(3) of the Constitution and there was a five-member SC verdict available too on the mechanism of suo motu cases.
\nAt that, the CJP said: \u201cIn the verdict, it is written that it would be better to stop the hearing of cases on 184(3). In the March 29 verdict, there was no directive rather a wish was expressed.
\n\u201cDecisions on cases have to be taken in favour of the public, not by adjourning the hearing,\u201d he stressed.<\/p>\n
\u2018Govt can request for a larger bench, not full court\u2019
\nAt one point during the hearing, AGP requested the court to adjourn the hearing until rules for petitions under Article 184(3) were finalised. However, Justice Ahsan inquired: \u201cHow can proceedings be postponed when rules for constitutional petitions already exist?\u201d
\nDespite that, Awan said here, a court order could not be dismissed through a circular.
\nAt that, the CJP said that the court had always taken caution when it came to taking suo motu notice, recalling that the first such notice this year was taken when the SC received requests from the speakers of two assemblies.
\nThe CJP disagreed with the argument that this case was different from other cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. He questioned how the court could stop action on cases whose rules had already been established and emphasised that the procedure for jurisdiction under Article 184(3) was very strict.
\nJustice Akhtar wondered over conflicting statements, as one side demanded a full court and the other side argued against holding a hearing at all. He asked the AGP to clarify whether a hearing could be held or not.
\nHe further commented that if the AGP\u2019s argument was accepted, even a full court could not go ahead with proceedings.
\nThe CJP pointed out that the judge who signed Justice Isa\u2019s order had recused himself from the bench. He questioned how it was possible for Justice Isa, who authored the verdict, to hear the case.
\nThe CJP suggested that the government could request the formation of a larger bench, not a full court. He also said that he met senior judges in the past three days.
\nAddressing AGP Awan, he said: \u201cIf you want to give arguments for [constituting] a larger bench, then go ahead.\u201d
\nSubsequently, the AGP requested the court that a bench be constituted \u2014 for hearing the PTI petition \u2014 comprising judges who were not included in the nine-member bench in the suo motu proceedings.
\n\u201cLet the remaining two judges decide on the 3-2 and 4-3 verdicts,\u201d he added.
\nAs the hearing proceeded, the CJP remarked that one decision was given by a majority bench while the other was given by a minority bench comprising of two members.
\nHe emphasised that the main purpose of the hearing was to ensure a fair trial, and stated that any decision taken without hearing all the concerned parties would have limited scope.
\nThe CJP stressed that decisions made after a thorough hearing of the case were crucial, while Justice Ahsan noted that two benches had conducted separate proceedings in the case.<\/p>\n
\u2018Help can be taken from navy, airforce for security during elections\u2019
\nThe CJP inquired about the presence of the secretaries of finance and defence, to which the attorney general responded that the secretary of finance was present with a report.
\nThe AGP told the court that the matter was sensitive and required an in-camera hearing to which the CJP directed Awan to submit the relevant files in court, saying that the bench would analyse them.
\nJustice Bandial remarked that the matter concerning security was not just limited to the army but also the navy and the air force, saying that when the armed forces were busy, help could be sought from the other two.
\n\u201cThe ECP says 50pc of the polling stations are safe. Every unit or office in the army is not for battle. The court has to do what can be done in an open court,\u201d he said, noting that if \u201cany sensitive thing comes forward\u201d, the judges will hear it in the chamber.
\nThe CJP also inquired about the exact number of security personnel required during the polls, to which Awan responded that everything was \u201con record\u201d and that the ECP had given reasons for its decision.
\nHere, Defence Secretary Lt Gen (retired) Hamooduz Zaman came to the rostrum.
\nThe CJP subsequently said: \u201cWe will not ask for sensitive information. Tell us the overall situation. For now, give us [information] about Punjab because there is no [election] date for KP.
\n\u201cAre the security conditions in Punjab serious?\u201d he asked the defence secretary, to which the latter said yes.
\n\u201cI cannot tell the details in an open court [as] we do not want the details to reach the enemy,\u201d Gen Zaman said to which the CJP said that the report could be submitted in an envelope.
\nWe will return the reports after analysing them, he stated, adding that if the court had a question, it would reach out to him for answers. \u201cIf you want to, written responses can be submitted as well.\u201d
\nJustice Ahsan also said that the court understood that sensitive matters should not be made public. \u201cWe do not want to create difficulties for national security forces and the public.\u201d
\nAt that, the court invited PTI\u2019s counsel Zafar to the rostrum and asked about his stance on an in-chambers hearing. The latter replied that the ECP had maintained that it would be ready to hold elections if adequate security was provided.
\n\u201cBut security personnel are available only for a day,\u201d he highlighted, saying that the issue of security would hence stay the same. \u201cThe constitutional need [for security] is of 90 days.\u201d
\nMeanwhile, the CJP inquired who would provide security for elections and asked if the ECP needed personnel with \u201ccombat abilities\u201d. \u201cThe question also arises that how do we know everything will be fine on Oct 8?\u201d
\nHere, the PTI lawyer said that \u201cservices of retired people can be availed\u201d to which the defence secretary replied that \u201creserved forces are present which can be called in specific circumstances\u201d.
\n\u201cThe method to call the reserved forces is present [in the law],\u201d Gen Zaman said but added that time was required to call the reserved forces and train them.
\n\u201cThe elections are not to be held tomorrow \u2014 a whole schedule will be released,\u201d the CJP said here. He added that a large number of the forces were positioned at the borders and combat forces were not needed for election duty.
\nThe court then directed the defence secretary to submit a report to the court on the matter by tomorrow.<\/p>\n
\u2018Increase revenue, cut down expenditures\u2019
\nSubsequently, the finance secretary\u2019s report was presented in court.
\n\u201cIs this report sensitive too?\u201d Justice Ahsan asked to which the AGP replied that the report was in line with the government\u2019s agreements with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
\n\u201cThe IMF programme is important in its place,\u201d the CJP said. \u201cThe current account and fiscal deficits must be reduced.\u201d He also suggested that the deficits could be minimised by increasing revenues and cutting down on expenditures.
\n\u201cWhich development project costs less than Rs20 billion?\u201d Justice Bandial inquired, pointing out that the petition stated that a fund amounting to Rs170bn was being given to the members (of the assembly).
\nAt that, the AGP replied: \u201cThis matter dates back to Oct 2022.\u201d
\nHere, the additional finance secretary explained that the planning commission releases funds as per the Public Sector Development Programme (PDSP).
\nTalking about this fiscal year\u2019s budget, he said that no cut was placed on the development funds. \u201cNew taxes were imposed to collect billions.\u201d
\nJustice Akhtar here inquired about the increase in the percentage that could be witnessed in the budget by releasing Rs170bn. \u201cIs it not possible to set aside Rs20bn out of a budget amounting to trillions?\u201d he asked.
\n\u201cThe finance minister had given a statement that more than Rs500bn was collected as tax in February,\u201d the judge recalled.
\nOn the other hand, Justice Bandial highlighted that the government had faced a loss of Rs157bn due to petroleum products, asking what would have happened if the deficit had turned to Rs177bn.
\nThe additional finance secretary replied that the deficit had been settled with the IMF.
\n\u201cCan the salaries [of government officials] not be reduced?\u201d the CJP asked. \u201cWhy don\u2019t you start by reducing the salaries of the judges?\u201d
\nThe chief justice clarified if there was a legal impediment, the court would end it, suggesting that a five per cent salary cut could be made in three phases.
\nThe top judge had made a similar remark during the hearing on March 28.
\n\u201cThe ECP would also be told to cut down their expenses,\u201d CJP Bandial added. \u201cWhich financial expert will brief the court [on this]?\u201d
\nAt one point during the hearing, PTI Secretary General Asad Umar took the rostrum and said that the government had spent Rs5700bn in the first five months of the fiscal year, adding that the total budget consisted of Rs9500bn.
\n\u201cThe IMF sets the loss target according to the GDP (gross domestic product) \u2026 Rs20bn are not more than 0.02pc [of the GDP],\u201d he contended, adding that the loss target was 4.97pc of the GDP.
\n\u201cRs20bn have nothing to do with the loss target,\u201d Umar added.
\nCJP Bandial then asked if expenses could be reduced from any sector to which the PTI leader replied: \u201cDevelopmental expenses amount to Rs700bn and Rs450bn are yet to be spent.\u201d
\nHe went on to say that the government had only spent Rs200bn in eight months, adding that the government had included another Rs8bn in development funds. \u201cHow is it possible that Rs20bn can\u2019t be taken out from a budget of Rs700bn? Is the constitutional requirement important or building roads? There is no bigger joke than this.\u201d
\nHere, the CJP observed that the government was \u201chesitating\u201d.
\n\u201cIf such an example is set, elections would never be held due to financial constraints,\u201d Justice Ahsan added.<\/p>\n
\u2018Decision to announce polls date should rest with ECP\u2019
\nAfter the security and finance reports were presented in court, ECP lawyer Qadir started presenting his arguments, assuring the court that he would be concise.
\n\u201cHow long will you present your arguments for?\u201d the CJP asked here, to which Qadir said that he would try to finish his arguments within 30 minutes.
\nHe started off by stating that when doubts arose about judges, they recused themselves from the hearing \u201cOn one side there is one party and on the other, there are the rest of the political parties.
\n\u201cThe perception of bias is coming from the bench,\u201d he stated, saying that all the coalition parties had requested for a full court to hear the case but their plea was not accepted.
\n\u201cJustice by the courts should be visible,\u201d Qadir pressed, recalling that a decision of the court was already in dispute. \u201cRight now, we can\u2019t see justice being dispensed.\u201d
\nHe told the court that the decision to announce the election date should rest with the election commission. \u201cThere should be a discussion on whether the decision was 3-2 or 4-3.\u201d
\nQadir mentioned that four out of nine judges \u2014 in the election suo motu hearing \u2014 had dismissed the case and three judges had issued orders. He added that the March 1 verdict was a minority judgement and called on the SC to resolve the differences.
\nThe ECP lawyer argued that the dispute over the proportionality of the judgment was not an internal matter. \u201cThe four judges who dismissed the plea should be included in this bench as well.
\n\u201cThe effect of a judicial order cannot be undermined by a circular,\u201d he demanded, adding that was \u201cimperative for the public to trust the judiciary\u201d.
\nQadir further said the rights of a \u201cminority group\u201d should be given preference over the majority.
\n\u201cThe national interest falls in implementing the law and Constitution,\u201d he highlighted, saying that elections within 90 days as mentioned in the Constitution was another matter.
\nThe ECP lawyer further went on to shed light on how elections in the country were carried out at the same for years, emphasising that polls to all the assemblies should be held simultaneously.
\nHe told the court that doing so will also save money.
\n\u201cIt is mandatory to have a caretaker government during the National Assembly elections. The provincial assemblies were dissolved two months ago and not two years ago,\u201d Qadir added.
\nHere, the AGP \u2014 while referring to Justice Isa\u2019s judgement \u2014 said that for the betterment of the people, the hearing on all the cases pertaining to suo motu powers should be stopped.
\nHowever, the CJP replied: \u201cThe welfare of the public is not in stopping the cases but in issuing judgements.\u201d
\nFor his part, Qadir said that stopping hearings of cases in high courts was not according to the Constitution.
\nHe further said that the KP governor had issued a date for polls in the province and contended that the SC\u2019s order regarding the president giving the date for elections was not as per the law. \u201cThe president cannot take any decision independently [regarding elections].
\n\u201cThe order given to him regarding giving a date for elections was unconstitutional,\u201d he contended, adding that the president was bound by the cabinet\u2019s advice in all matters.
\n\u201cAs per the Election Act, the president only has authority when it comes to the general elections,\u201d the ECP lawyer said, adding that general elections will be held throughout the country at the same time.
\nHe again reminded the court that Justice Isa\u2019s decision had stopped the hearing of all the cases under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
\u2018Full court meeting to be called soon for SC rules\u2019
\nAddressing the CJP, Qadir stated that the top judge was currently trending on social media and that petitions were being signed in the favour of Justice Bandial.
\n\u201cWe turn to God for our well-being,\u201d the CJP replied. \u201cDon\u2019t waste your time by talking about social media,\u201d he remarked, adding that \u201cwe do not look at social media\u201d.
\nAt that, Qadir requested the top judge to solve the internal matters of the court. He also said that until the conflict on Article 184(3) of the Constitution was resolved, all suo motu hearings should be stopped. \u201cJustice Qazi Faez Isa is a senior judge and his judgement cannot be ignored,\u201d he added.
\nHere, the CJP revealed on matters highlighted above, all the judges would soon meet. \u201cWe will soon call a full court meeting would soon be called to make the rules,\u201d he added.
\nJustice Bandial said that he had met Justice Isa recently and some issues were highlighted during the meeting.
\nThe CJP remarked that one of the top court judges had recused themselves from the hearing in light of the order issued by Justice Isa.
\nQadir, however, said that a three-member bench could not preside over the hearing after six judges had expressed their opinions. He pointed out that Justice Minullah had also questioned the move to dissolve the provincial assemblies.
\nHe highlighted that an audio leak, purportedly featuring Parvez Elahi, had surfaced wherein he allegedly said that assemblies would not have been dissolved if PTI\u2019s Fawad Chaudhry had been arrested earlier. He said that the Punjab Assembly was not dissolved \u201ceither by the chief minister or the governor\u201d.
\nHe went on to say that for the sake of \u201ctransparency\u201d, it would have been better if Justice Ahsan was not made part of the bench. At the same time, he said that he admired Justice Ahsan.
\nAt this, the CJP said that he was not bound to explain his reasoning for constituting the bench.
\nJustice Bandial then asked the ECP\u2019s lawyer to show from the court record when Justice Ahsan recused himself from the bench. Qadir replied that one of the judges had penned a note which stated that Justice Ahsan had recused himself.
\n\u201cFor the CJP to say that (Justice Ahsan) did not recuse himself is in contravention to what has been written by two judges,\u201d he said.
\nThe CJP said that the notes of the judges who had recused themselves from the hearing were part of the record. \u201cNo judge can be removed from a bench under the law,\u201d he said.
\nAt one point, the ECP lawyer said that the top court had been dubbed the \u201cone-man show\u201d and asked for this to be clarified. The CJP responded that he had asked Justice Isa about his remarks and the senior jurist had replied that he was talking generally and not about Justice Bandial in particular.
\nJustice Bandial said the atmosphere in the court, like the entire country, was heated. He said that the AGP did not play a part in defusing the situation, adding that this issue should have been taken up by parliament.
\nQadir then wrapped up his arguments, to which the CJP said that the court was \u201camused\u201d by the lawyer\u2019s stance.
\nHere, PPP\u2019s Naek and PML-N lawyer Akram Sheikh requested the bench to grant them permission to present their arguments. However, the court maintained that they could not do so because they were representing the government. The judges noted that the coalition leaders had over the weekend expressed a lack of confidence over the bench and hence there was no point in presenting their stance in the court.
\nMeanwhile, PTI lawyer Zafar highlighted that no one talked about the jurisdiction of the ECP during the hearing. The commission did not tell the court about the authority under which the polls were postponed.
\nHere, the CJP recalled that ECP\u2019s Swati had talked about Section 58 of the Election Act, 2016. But Zafar contended that the Elections Act, 2016, could not supersede the Constitution.
\nZafar recalled that ECP had referred to Article 218(3) of the Constitution, under which it was bound to hold polls. \u201cBut the ECP cannot take any decision that violates the Constitution.\u201d
\nThe CJP remarked that the Constitution was clear on who would give the date for elections. \u201cIrfan Qadir has said that the president cannot act without consulting with the government \u2026 can the president give a date for polls without advice?\u201d
\nGoing on, Justice Bandial remarked that the courts were present for justice according to the law and Constitution, adding that \u201cpolitical agendas\u201d were brought forth in political cases.
\nHe expressed disappointment with the AGP, saying that Awan only presented arguments on the March 1 verdict. \u201cPresent your written arguments on this.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2018No response on option for negotiations\u2019
\nContinuing with his argument, PTI\u2019s Zafar said that the ECP could not change the date for the elections itself and could not act in violation of the Constitution.
\nThe ECP has diverted the entire blame for not holding polls on the federal and provincial governments.
\nHere, the CJP remarked that there were certain situations in which the delay in elections was justified, but highlighted that the government had failed to present strong reasons for it. \u201cThe Supreme Court was not informed about the obstacles in the way of elections.
\n\u201cThe court has to strike a balance,\u201d Justice Bandial stated, noting that the government had failed to show the willingness to hold polls.
\nHe further pointed out that the SC had presented an option before the government regarding negotiations with the opposition, but received no response on it.
\n\u201cPeople say they are above the Constitution \u2026 they want judges of their own choice to hear cases,\u201d Justice Bandial said. \u201cThe court doesn\u2019t want to put the public in difficulties. If an untoward situation takes place during elections, the blame will fall on the court.\u201d
\nThe CJP added that the court respected the Parliament and the government, adding that political solutions were the way out of such crises.
\nPTI says govt failed to present constitutional argument for delaying polls
\nShortly after the verdict was reserved, PTI leaders Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Asad Umar spoke to the media outside the top court.
\nQureshi said that the SC bench listened to \u201cevery single perspective\u201d with patience. He maintained that the government was not able to provide any \u201csubstantial evidence\u201d for their arguments, adding that the two main points of the government\u2019s argument was that security could not be provided and that there were not enough finances for polls.
\nHe expressed surprise at the fact that the coalition government had announced it would boycott proceedings yet their lawyer was present in court and was seeking an adjournment.
\n\u201cThe CJP himself remarked that the federal government did not give a constitutional argument, which could be counted as a valid reason, for postponing the polls,\u201d Umar added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Islamabad The Supreme Court will announce its verdict on the PTI\u2019s petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan\u2019s (ECP) decision to postpone polls to the Punjab Assembly till Oct 8 on Tuesday (tomorrow). A three-member bench \u2014 comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar \u2014 reserved […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":323498,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[12472,5643],"class_list":{"0":"post-323569","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-top-news","8":"tag-punjab-polls","9":"tag-verdict"},"yoast_head":"\n