ISLAMABAD: The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to ban the candidates from contesting elections from more than one constituency.
A five-judge bench, headed by Justice Amin ud Din, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Mussarat Hilali, on Thursday, heard multiple cases. It upheld the objections raised by the Registrar’s Office.
During the proceeding, Justice Hilali told the petitioner’s counsel that the Court can strike down laws, but cannot legislate new ones. Justice Mazhar stated if the petitioner has challenged the Elections Act then that is another issue.
Contesting polls from multiple seats: SC urged to rule that Article 223 (2) is ultra vires
A petition was filed by a lawyer arguing that contesting elections from more than one constituency violated the Constitution and legal principles. His counsel contended that the principle of “one person, one vote” should be the basic principle in the elections, but permitting candidates to contest multiple constituencies undermine the democratic concept.
He also criticised the practice of candidates running for seats in areas where they do not even have a registered vote. Justice Amin said if the law does allow the candidate not to vote for themselves then your argument would hold.
Justice Mandokhel said the law requires the proposer and seconder to be from the same constituency, and since the legislature has allowed this, you cannot question the intent of the legislature.
Justice Azhar asked the counsel that it would be better if his client persuade the political leadership regarding the matter.
The bench hearing a child’s abduction in Quetta denied taking suo-motu notice on the issue. Justice Mandokhel clarified that the case is already under consideration and rejected any notion that the Constitutional Bench had taken suo-motu notice of the incident.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan submitted a confidential progress report related to the abduction, and requested the bench to review it in chambers and informed about the formation of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) for the child’s recovery. The bench accepting the request examined the report in chambers.
When the bench resumed hearing after an interval, additional advocate general Balochistan requested the court to intervene and end the ongoing sit-in in Quetta. However, Justice Hilali said resolving such matters was the responsibility of the provincial administration and that the federal government could provide support if needed.
During the hearing, child’s father pleaded for his child’s safe return. Justice Mandokhel told him that full cooperation would be extended from all sides, adding the Balochistan police chief had provided detailed information in chambers.
He said that certain details could not be disclosed at this stage to avoid compromising the investigation. The judge urged the media to refrain from excessive coverage, as it could endanger the child’s life. Justice Amin stated that the case had not yet been resolved in the Supreme Court and that increasing pressure could put the child’s life at risk.
In the last hearing of the case, it appeared that the bench took suo-motu notice of the missing child in Quetta and summoned all provincial Inspectors General of Police (IGs) in the case. The bench had summoned all IGPs and home secretaries from all provinces for the next hearing.
Justice Mandokhel had expressed concern over the failure to recover the missing child in Quetta, stating that despite the city being paralysed by protests for six days, the government had seemed indifferent. He pointed out that even schoolchildren in Quetta had taken to the streets in protest.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments