ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) sought Supreme Court’s guidance whether to follow majority judgment or Elections (Second) Amendment Act, 2024, promulgated with retrospective effect, on reserved seats.
The ECP, on Thursday, filed a petition before the SC, submitting that in the peculiar circumstances, it finds itself in a precarious situation in as much as if it discharges the obligation forthwith, as per eight-judge order dated 14-09-24, then it nullifies the law enacted by the Parliament and vice-versa.
The SC’s clarification dated 14-09-24 said: “The list required to be issued by the Commission in terms of paragraph 8 (read with paragraph 10) of the Short Order is nothing more than a ministerial act, for the information and convenience of all concerned, and has no substantive effect.”
It warned; “The continued failure of, and refusal by, the Commission to perform this legally binding obligation may, have consequences. This obligation must be discharged forthwith.”
The petition maintained that the Speaker National Assembly on 19-09-2024 wrote a letter to the Commission asserting that the majority judges’ order dated 12-07-2024 is prior to the amendments has been nullified after the promulgation of the Act, 2024. The Speaker’s letter underlined the principle of Parliamentary supremacy and required the Commission to act upon the existing law. The petition mentioned that Speakers of the Punjab and Sindh Assemblies also called upon the ECP to implement the Elections (Second Amendment) Act, 2024.
It informed that apart from that, the members whose notifications had been set at naught have preferred various applications before the Commission seeking giving effect to the Elections (Second) Amendment Act.
The Commission submitted that it had implemented the majority judges’ order dated 12-07-2024 with regard to 39 candidates on 24-07-24, but for the remaining 41 candidates it had filed an application before the Supreme Court that in the absence of a valid organizational structure of PTI who will confirm the political affiliation of the returned candidates on behalf of the political party.
The petition stated that the Commission being a constitutional body has always governed its affairs in accordance with the law of the land and in due compliance with the constitution. It was with this intent that the ECP approached the apex court to seek a clarification. The Commission has not delayed the matter rather had applied to the Court forthwith, as per para 6 of its short order.
The petition outlined that the Supreme Court has time and again deliberated over the issue of the power of the legislature to legislate irrespective of the judgment of a Court. The essence of the principle is to ensure nothing is in derogation to the powers of the Parliament.
The Commission submitted that the apex court has held categorically in judgment [PLD 1981 SC 61] that as long as the law, enacted by the legislation holds the field the same shall bound and be effective till set at naught or declared otherwise. The same principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in judgment PLD 2010 SC 828. Its para 19 illustrates; “very law of the land, so long as it exist on the statute books has to be respected and must be followed.”
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024