ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has asked the Supreme Court to review its 12th July judgment in reserved seats of women and non-Muslims to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
The Commission on Wednesday filed the review petition.
The ECP submitted that it has implemented the judgment to the extent of 39 candidates in due deference to the Court, and also sought clarification from it, but the same may not be taken to prejudice the instant review being a constitutional right of the petitioner.
The ECP stated that the impugned judgment, respectfully, is not in accordance with the Constitution, law and the precedents of this Court; hence the petitioner desires to obtain review of the impugned judgment
It contended that a manifest error in the impugned judgment is that primary relief has been granted to the PTI when neither the PTI, nor persons claiming to be candidates of it for reserved seats, nor any independent-returned candidates approached the ECP, the High Court or the Supreme Court to claim any seat out of seats reserved for women or non-Muslims.
The Commission submitted that the directions passed in the impugned judgment have clearly been passed without considering that such directions outrightly discriminate in favour of a single political party by extending concessions and relaxing certain articles of the Constitution, laws and rules only to the extent of that single party.
It stated that in the manner the relief has been provided to accommodate only a particular party (PTI) is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution, as all members must be treated equally and in accordance with the prevailing law. The rights afforded under Article 17 of the Constitution to the PTI and its members cannot be held paramount to those of the SIC or any other political party.
The Commission stated that impugned judgment amount to judicial overreach and there is no place for such intervention where the pending lis concerns constitutional questions of utmost importance, and the affected persons and parties belong to well-educated, powerful, and influential segments of our society, who have either knowingly come forward to claim certain relief for themselves or refrained from participating at all. It said that one member of the SIC, Kanwal Shauzeb, came forward and claimed the reserved seats for and on behalf of SIC, and none else, without any party list of candidates having been submitted by SIC in this regard.
It said that joining or not joining a particular political party is the sole prerogative of the persons, herein the members of the SIC, who joined SIC; same cannot be compelled or deemed to be the members of the PTI when they made a clear choice in favour of SIC.
The ECP contended that the order under review brushes clause (c) of sub-Article 1 of Article 4 of the constitution aside and imposes its own will to those of the SIC members who had already made a choice by submitting their declarations in favour of SIC and duly joined it.
It said that only one independent candidate; i.e., Salman Akram Raja agitated his right to be treated as candidate for PTI, vide WP No 5211 of 2024 before the Lahore High Court and in Case No F.6 (56)/ 2024-Law-II remitted to the ECP by the High Court. The ECP dismissed the petition which order was never meaningfully challenged before the superior courts; thus the said order attained finality.
The Commission stated that the impugned judgment has effectively re-set decisions taken by returned candidates and which stood crystallised, and such re-setting finds no place in either the law or the constitution. Furthermore, this re-set has opened the doors for the practices of horse-trading, floor-crossing, and other corrupt practices, which have been specifically deprecated by judgments of this Court.
All courts, including the Supreme Court, are bound to decide cases as per the Constitution and the law as there exist no jurisdiction to decide a case outside the ambit of the law. The exercise of Article 187 has expressly been made “subject to” Article 175 (2): ‘No court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law.’ Article 187 does not confer any jurisdiction but it provides a provision whereby Supreme Court can exercise the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution or any other law more effectively. The power under Article 187 cannot be used to pass such directions as would make redundant statutory provisions and rules and expand the limits of the jurisdiction being exercised in a pending lis.
The jurisdictions under Article 184(3) and 185 (3) and 188 are distinct and separate and the lines between them cannot be blurred on the pretext of doing complete justice under Article 187.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.