Election suo moto: SC bench ‘reconstituted’ as four judges bow out of hearing

Islamabad: The nine-member larger bench of the Supreme Court hearing the suo moto notice for an apparent delay in elections of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) has been reduced to five members after four judges excused themselves from hearing the case. 

Apart from Justice Ejaz ul Ahsan and Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Yahya have also excused themselves from hearing the case.

The hearing was scheduled to begin at 11am today, however, it was delayed.

A written order issued on the SC’s website included dissenting notes of Justice Minallah, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Afridi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.

Following this, a new five-member bench was formed headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Mandokhail, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Shah resumed the hearing.

At the beginning of the hearing, CJP Umar shared that four judges had excused themselves from the bench, adding that, “The rest of the court’s bench will continue to hear the case”.

He said: “We will try to complete the hearing tomorrow by starting at 9:30am.

Chief justice said that Justice Jamal Mandokhail’s note was on social media before the order, we will be careful in the future so that such incident do not happen.

Following the court’s order, the speaker’s lawyer Ali Zafar argued that the Chief Minister of Punjab sent the summary to dissolve the assembly to the governor, who was bound to dissolve the assembly but he did not. The refusal of the governor lead to the dissolution of the assembly automatically within 48 hours. He further said that, “No constitutional official can delay the elections for more than 90 days, and this time period started from January 14 in Punjab”.

On the question of Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Ali Zafar said that the governor is appointed with the approval of the President.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar maintained that there is a difference between the dissolution of the assembly by the governor and the automatic dissolution on the constitutional term.

Justice Mandokhel said: “Whose job is to decide the date of elections”?

Ali Zafar said that the issue of responsibility for the elections date has been automatically taken notice of.

Justice Ali Mazhar said that there is no provision of the constitution that justifies the delay of 90 days in the elections.

Lawyer Ali Zafar said that no one can delay the elections. On this Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the Governor of Punjab passed the matter in the Election Commission's court.

Ali Zafar responded that ping-pong is being played on the date of the elections, the court can order the governor or election commission to set the date of the elections.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned whether the case has been delayed at the request of the parties in the Lahore High Court.

Lawyer Azhar Siddique responded that the issue of elections is pending in the Supreme Court, so it was delayed by the Lahore High Court (LHC). Lawyer Ali Zafar stated that no injunction was given in the ongoing intra-court appeal in the Lahore High Court.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah stated that LHC had ordered the date of the elections, was any contempt of court petition filed?

Lawyer Zafar said that a contempt of court petition has been filed against the Election Commission. Lawyer Azhar Siddique stated that the Election Commission gave a vague answer in the contempt of court case.

The CJP asked whether the LHC gave reasons for such a long delay. An important matter cannot be adjourned for such a long time without valid reasons.

Lawyer Azhar Sadiq said that the Election Commission sought time to submit the reply in the High Court, which was postponed.

It is pertinent to note that a two-member bench of the Supreme Court had sent the matter to the Chief Justice for suo moto notice in the Ghulam Mahmood Dogar case on February 16. On which the Court had taken suo moto notice and formed a nine-member bench.