ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court, on Monday, directed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to file the chart showing seats divided among the political parties before and after the exclusion of independents.
During the proceeding, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said the larger principle is representativeness. The best way to solve it is to have two sets of calculations before us; one way is excluding the independents and the other non-excluding them. “How the voting pattern in the Assembly changes, if it is drastic then we have [a] problem, therefore, have to see the difference.” “If the difference changes the scheme as far as the representatives, which is [the] larger principle before us.”
Justice Mansoor said there are larger denominations of independents and they are not lesser beings. The independents are a potent force and have an impact when they join a political party. He, therefore, directed the attorney general to give the chart of both situations.
However, Justice Yahya Afridi said the calculation should come from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) because if the attorney general, who represents the federation, submits it then the Commission would say it is wrong as the federation is not supposed to give the calculation.
Justice Munib inquired from the AGP that if a system (Election Act) that preceded the 2018 elections can work in 2018 then why it could not be applied in this elections (2024). The peculiar problem that you have been facing might not have emerged if applying the system, he remarked.
A Full Court, headed by CJP Faez, was hearing an appeal of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) for not allocating women and minorities reserved seats to it in the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies.
The counsels for the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP), Jamiat Ulema Islam (JUI), the Punjab government, and some candidates who became members of the Parliament on extra allocation of reserved seats, adopted the arguments of Makhdoom Ali Khan.
The advocate generals of Balochistan, Islamabad and the Punjab, adopted the arguments of the attorney general. However, Advocate General of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Shah Faisal Uthmankhel argued that in 2018 Balochistan Awami Party (BAP), though did not contest elections in KP but it was allotted reserved seats.
The chief justice said that BAP got the seats in Balochistan. However, Uthmankhel said it did not win any seats in the KP but was allotted the reserved seats.
Justice Jamal questioned whether the KP government had challenged that decision. He said to the AG KP that if he would raise that issue now then the issue of Senate elections in 2018 would also be opened. He inquired from Uthmankhel whether he considered the allocation of seats to BAP was right or wrong.
The chief justice said he is concerned about one thing, that the government and the Supreme Court have a specific role in the constitution. He said that the ECP is neither subordinate to the executive nor to the apex court despite that we disparage the institution. The function of the ECP is to hold elections. “We (the SC) need to be shown that the ECP made illegal and constitution error.”
The chief justice said every person and the institution has different functions. He said why go into the nitty and gritty that the ECP should have done this or the ECP should have not done this? “Why don’t we follow the Constitution?”
Earlier, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, appearing on behalf of the ECP, contented that in the election schedule as per the Election Act, the final stage is when the symbols are allotted to the candidates. He said if Hamid Raza wanted to contest the election as a member of the SIC then he should have been issued the party ticket.
He said from 14th January 2024 till 7th February 2024, the PTI had enough time to hold intra-party elections (ICE) as there was no bar under Sections 208 and 209 of the Election Act, adding that it did not do so.
The chief justice asked why he taking the matter to 14-01-24 – 07-02-4 and not beyond. He asked him not to blame the Supreme Court for its judgment dated 13-01-24. He said that the law says to hold ICE as per the party constitution. The inappropriate thing is that in 2019, the ECP granted one year to the PTI despite that it could not hold intra-party elections.
Justice Athar Minallah said since the PTI did not hold ICE, therefore, its candidates were declared as independents. But if this premise is removed, that the Commission has misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s judgment, therefore, it passed this order, then the Commission did not fulfill its constitutional obligation and considered the PTI candidates as independents. There would have been no controversy if the political party was not eliminated from the elections.
Justice Ayesha observed that when there is such a situation that the Commission say that there are more independents and cannot join the SIC and all these somehow will be excluded from the allotment of reserved seats. She said those candidates who were declared independents are not before the Court.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments