The Supreme Court (SC) Complete verdict on electoral plea | Supreme Court Complete decision on electoral plea | Punjab and KP elections for May 14.

Posted on

The Supreme Court (SC)Complete verdict on electoral plea | Supreme Court Complete decision on electoral plea | Punjab and KP elections for May 14.

The Supreme Court (SC)Complete verdict on electoral plea | Supreme Court Complete decision on electoral plea | Punjab and KP elections for May 14.

(Voice News ) – The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled on Tuesday that the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) order delaying elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was null and void.

After hearing arguments from the parties involved, the Supreme Court’s three-member bench, led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprised of Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, issued the reserved verdict on Monday.

The Supreme Court ruled that elections would be held on May 14 rather than the previously scheduled date of April 30.

The Ministry of Defence submitted its report to the Supreme Court in a sealed envelope ahead of the ruling. According to sources, the report explained why troops were not available for elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The verdict will be announced by the court.

Security has been tightened.

Meanwhile, a large police, Rangers, and FC contingent has been deployed, and barbed wire has been installed around the top court as part of security measures to avoid any untoward incidents.

Furthermore, only relevant people will be permitted to enter the court premises after verification. Visitors to the Supreme Court for their cases will be required to show identification in order to enter the building.

On Monday, there will be a hearing.

Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked PPP counsel Farooq H. Naek at the start of yesterday’s hearing if his party had boycotted the proceedings.

Mansoor Awan, the Attorney General of Pakistan, ECP lawyers Irfan Qadir and Sajeel Swati, and PTI lawyer Ali Zafar were also in the courtroom as the hearing bagan. Finance and defence secretaries were also present.

“How can you boycott the case while also attending the hearing?” Justice Akhtar asked. “How can anyone boycott the case proceedings?” he wondered. He claimed that newspaper reports indicated that the government had boycotted the proceedings and that he (Mr Naek) could not give argus.

When the CJP asked the PPP lawyer if he wanted to participate in the proceedings, Mr Naek assured him that his party would not boycott the hearing. Something else was written in the newspapers, according to Justice Bandial, and the PPP counsel responded that his party had reservations about the petition’s viability. The CJP asked Mr Naek to provide written assurance that the party had not boycotted the hearing.

Justice Bandial then inquired about the AGP’s instructions. Mr Awan responded that the government was bound by the Constitution and could not participate in the proceedings. He claimed, however, that the PTI petition was based on the Supreme Court’s March 1 verdict, in which the apex court directed the president to choose a date for elections in Punjab and the governor to choose a date for elections in KP. He stated that the KP governor did not set a date until the petition was filed.

The CJP questioned how the ECP could have set the date of October 8 for elections. He claimed that only the Supreme Court had the authority to postpone elections and that the Election Commission of Pakistan lacked such authority.

The CJP also stated that the Supreme Court circular did not overturn the order of a bench led by Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

Meanwhile, Justice Ahsan stated that the issue at hand was the ECP’s decision to postpone elections. He stated that the commission was obligated to follow the court’s orders.

According to the AGP, the first round of hearings were presided over by a nine-member bench. “On February 21, we received the court’s order, which included dissenting notes from two judges.” “The case was dismissed by the two judges in the first hearing,” he explained.

The CJP, on the other hand, stated that only one judge had dismissed the proceedings. “Justice Athar Minallah had not mentioned rejecting the request in his dissenting note,” he said.

Justice Yahya Afridi had agreed with Justice Minallah in his note,” the AGP contended, to which Justice Bandial responded that the court understood Awan’s position.

Justice Akhtar recalled that on February 27, a nine-member bench had petitioned the CJP for the bench’s reconstitution. He added that the new bench had five judges.

CJP Bandial also stated that judicial harmony is critical for the Supreme Court.

The PML-N government’s new request Supreme Court Complete decision

Hours earlier, the Shehbaz-led government filed a new petition in the Supreme Court, requesting that the bench hearing the election delay case be reconstituted without the judges who heard the suo motu notice.

Mansoor Usman Awan, the Attorney General of Pakistan, filed a miscellaneous plea ahead of the scheduled hearing of the suo motu on the PTI petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) order postponing the Punjab election to October 8.

Justices Mandokhail and Aminuddin had previously recused themselves from hearing the case. The bench was divided twice after the two judges decided not to serve. The three-member bench summoned the interior and finance secretaries.

During the previous hearing, the Supreme Court denied the Attorney General of Pakistan’s request to form a full court. The arguments of PTI lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar and Election Commission lawyer Sajeel Swati in the case were completed.

During the previous hearing, the chief justice stated that there would be important news on Monday. We’ve shown restraint,” he said. He observed that the government would have to forget the past.

It should be noted that in the election case, the Pakistan Peoples Party, the PML-N, and the JUI-F have requested to become parties and the full court’s constitution.

A number of officers from the Islamabad police, Frontier Corps, and Rangers have been stationed inside and outside the Supreme Court.

The federation’s request

The petition asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the election delay case in light of the March 1 majority (4-3) order/judgment. It also stated that the proceedings in the current petition should be postponed due to the order issued by Justice Qazi Faez Isa, which postponed all proceedings in suo motu matters.

In light of the submissions made in paragraphs 11 and 12, this Hon’ble Bench may graciously recuse itself from hearing the instant petition, and a bench comprised of all remaining Hon’ble Judges of this court, who did not hear SMC No. 1/2023, CPs No 1 and 2 of 2023, may kindly be formed to decide the questions raised herein,” the plea requested.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *