ISLAMABAD: A three-member special bench comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) hearing in the suo motu as well as the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) plea challenging the order of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for postponing the Punjab election to October 8, citing security reasons during which the CJP Bandial observed ‘If army busy, help can be sought from Pakistan Navy (PN) and Pakistan Air Force (PAF)’.
In intra-court developments, things have snowballed into a serious duel between Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and the ruling PDM, as the incumbent rulers have expressed reservations over the three-member bench set to hear the case on the delay in holding of elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The court had also summoned the secretaries of interior and finance today. The AGP told the court the finance secretary is present along with a report.
The attorney general noted that there are rules for applications under Article 184(3), adding there was an SC verdict by a five-member bench on suo motu notice.
The CJP observed that the March 29 verdict of Justice Qazi Faez Isa suggests it would be appropriate to halt hearing of all cases under Article 184(3), adding the verdict did not contain a directive, but a wish.
Justice Munib noted that on one hand the political parties wanted a full court to hear the case and on the other, they want the hearing to be halted.
“The plea for a full court was rejected on Friday,” the AGP noted.
At this, Justice Akhtar asked the AGP to first decide if the hearing can be conducted or not. The CJP observed that the plea for a full court was rejected for the time being.
The maximum you can plead for is a larger bench, the CJP told the AGP.
“A larger bench will be requested at a later stage,” AGP Awan said.
CJP Bandial said no judge has been removed from the bench nor has anyone recused voluntarily. He added that nine members had sent the matter to the chief justice.
According to the court record, no judge recused from hearing the case, adding a full court hearing can be beneficial, but not full bench.
CJP Bandial said that during the last three days he had met with senior judges, and asked the AGP to argue on a larger bench, if he wanted.
“The judges who were not part of the nine-member bench should hear the case,” the AGP argued, adding the matter of a 3-2 and 4-3 verdict should be decided by the remaining two judges.
Justice Ahsan observed that if the order of the Election Commission of Pakistan is upheld, the remaining appeals will be dismissed.
He further said the ECP was bound to implement the court verdict.
The CJP said the law did not allow anyone to delay elections, adding only the court can extend the date. In 1988 also, the polls were delayed on court orders, and it issues such orders considering ground realities, he noted.
Addressing PPP counsel Farooq H Naek, Justice Akhtar said that on the one hand, objections have been raised on the bench, while on the other the political parties have become part of the proceedings.
He asked the senior lawyer to read out the declaration of the coalition partners’ meeting and the language used.
JUI-F lawyer Kamran Murtaza said the reservations were only on the bench, while Mr Naek said there were reservations about the admissibility of the petitions and the jurisdiction of the bench.
The CJP told the counsel not to become part of the proceedings if they wanted to boycott the case. “If you don’t want to boycott, give it in writing,” CJP Bandial suggested the political parties.
On being asked, the AGP told the court the federal government cannot boycott the proceedings. “The government works according to the Constitution.”
“For the last 48 hours, the media has been saying that political parties have no confidence over the bench,” Justice Munib Akhar observed, adding, “If you don’t trust us, how can you present arguments before us?”
The AGP said that according to the observations of four judges, the petitions against the ECP decision have been rejected.
“No clear order has been given in Justice Isa’s judgement,” the CJP observed.
AGP Awan then argued that the question was whose opinion should be deemed the majority decision. “The solution is that the judges who have heard the case before should be removed from the bench,” he suggested.
The CJP observed that security concerns were the main issue. The AGP observed it is a sensitive issue, and sought an in-camera briefing.
The issue of forces is not only about the army, but also of navy and air force, the CJP observed, adding if the army is busy, then help can be sought from the navy and air force.
“The election commission says 50 percent of the polling stations are safe,” the CJP noted, adding someone should at least come forward with the number of personnel required.
The AGP said the election commission had detailed some reasons in its verdict.
CJP Bandial asked the defence secreatary if the current security situation in Punjab is sensitive. The secretary responded in the affirmative, but said he could not divulge the details in an open court.
As PTI lawyer Ali Zafar appeared on the rostrum, he told the court the ECP says it can conduct the elections if adequate security was provided.
The CJP questioned how the security situation will improve by October 8, adding if the ECP required combative soldiers.
The defence secretary said reserve force can be utilised in certain cases, adding rules existed about summoning the reserve force.
The CJP asked for identification of the sensitive areas, adding the election commission had declared 45 percent polling stations sensitive.
The court allowed the defence secretary to submit a written report by tomorrow on the security situation.
Meanwhile, the finance secretary’s report was submitted in court. The AGP told the court the report was in light of the talks with IMF.
The chief justice observed that the current account and fiscal deficit were being reduced. The deficit can only be reduced by increasing revenue and reducing expenditure, he noted.
He then asked which development project is less than Rs20 billion, adding that according to the petitioner, Rs170 billion were being given to lawmakers.
The additional finance secretary said new taxes were levied to collect Rs170 billion. Justice Akhar asked what will be the impact of releasing Rs20 billion for the elections.
The CJP asked if salaries cannot be reduced. “Why don’t you start reducing the salaries of the judges?” he asked, adding if there is a legal obstacle, the court will remove it.
“The election commission will also be asked to reduce its expenses,” CJP Bandial observed, adding the government appeared hesitant.
“If you can’t reduce development expenditure, reduce non-development expenditure,” the chief justice noted, observing the government has made efforts to reduce expenditures.
ECP counsel Irfan Qadir remarked that it is not an issue of no-confidence on the court, but justice should be seen to be done. A decision of the court is already disputed.
“Right now, justice is not being seen to be done. In my view, justice is not being done,” Qadir noted, adding, however, he may have a misunderstanding too.
“The decision to fix the election date should be left to the Election Commission,” he argued.
Meanwhile, in the latest development, the federal government on Monday filed a fresh plea in the top court seeking the reconstitution of the bench.
The federal government has requested the court to dismiss the PTI’s petition. It has also objected to the bench hearing the case.
The miscellaneous plea was filed by Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan.
The petition says that after the decision of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the hearing cannot continue. The CJP and Justice Munib have already decided the election case, it observes.
It further says Justice Ijazul Ahsan has already made his mind clear by writing a note for taking suo motu notice. Justice Ahsan also recused himself from the hearing in the initial stages.
The federal government pleads that it would be appropriate if the CJP and Justice Munib Akhtar also recuse themselves from hearing the case. Judges who have already heard the case should not be a part of the bench.
The judges who have not heard the case before should be on the bench, it pleads.
Read more: CJP-led three-member bench resumes hearing in poll delay case
