This is apropos a letter on the abovementioned subject of this writer carried by the newspaper recently. In my view, the observers are of the view that the Supreme Court (SC), which has set the ball rolling after restoring Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) as a political party, will not stop anytime soon.
They believe it will extend to claiming over 80 seats in the national assembly and several seats in the Punjab assembly, which were allegedly stolen from it by altering, fudging, defrauding, and manipulating the election results on Form 47 by the returning officers.
It would also extend to demanding the release of their incarcerated leader, Imran Khan, and the annulment of the amendment made in the Election Act 2024, which was bulldozed by the parliament with members who were allegedly beneficiaries of PTI’s stolen seats.
These amendments have given the EC power to appoint tribunals without consulting the Chief Justices of the High Courts. The PTI has already challenged this amendment. They may have many cogent reasons to offer while seeking the annulment of the amendments by the respective high courts.
First, they may argue that, on the universal principle of the separation of the executive from the judiciary, the tribunal cannot be appointed either by the government or the Election Commission without consultation with the judiciary. Second, the SC has declared that the EC harbored bad mala fide intent against the PTI, and the EC was a party against the SIC (Sunni Ittehad Council) and PTI in the impugned case.
Therefore, the EC cannot appoint Election Tribunals, where the EC and its appointed ROs will be the main defendants. Third, since the elections were conducted based on the Election Amendment Act 2023, any amendments made thereafter should, on all legal, moral, and ethical grounds, apply to the next elections.
Furthermore, they may argue that the parliament passed the bill in undue haste, without referring it to the standing committees of both the National Assembly and the Senate for proper consultation and failed to achieve broader support for the bill. They may also argue that the bill was consented to by those members who were illegally made part of the parliament on the reserved seats for women and minorities, which actually belonged to the PTI.
Moreover, the bill was passed by an incomplete house; therefore, it may be annulled and referred back to the parliament for reconsideration after both houses are complete and the bill is properly evaluated by the respective committees of both the NA and the Senate.
I may close this two-part letter with the layman’s views offered by my wife after the SC’s decision. She said, “When the court makes a decision that appears to have delivered justice, it gives us hope for a brighter future and motivates us to make our country prosper.
Conversely, it creates despair, hopelessness, and extinguishes the light even at the end of the tunnel, causing society to lose confidence in the system and its own strength. Let us hope that our judiciary continues to strictly adhere to the constitution and provides the nation with the hope of a better future.”
Qamar Bashir
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.