Three ruling coalition political parties — Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam Fazl (JUI-F), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to form a full court to hear the suo motu notice taken by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on the delay in the announcement of a date for elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The PDM raised objections over the two judges bench of the Supreme Court.
The request was made in a joint statement read out by lawyer Farooq H Naek, on behalf of the three parties when the nine-member bench resumed the hearing of the suo motu notice today.
The PPP lawyer also requested Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi to recuse themselves from the nine-member bench currently hearing the suo motu notice.
The bench is headed by CJP Bandial and comprises Justice Ahsan, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Naqvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah.
At the outset of today’s hearing, the attorney general told the court that they had not received the copy of the court order which is why all parties did not appear today.
At this, CJP Bandial remarked that the purpose of today’s hearing was to inform the relevant authorities about the suo motu notice.
On this point, Naek came before the bench and read out the joint statement of PPP, JUI-F and PML-N regarding their objections about the bench.
The lawyer said that both the judges had made their observations on the matter when they heard Ghulam Mehmood Dogar’s plea regarding his removal as Lahore police chief.
At the outset of the hearing, CJP Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked he is happy to see the lawyers of all respondents in the courtroom today. Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz complained about not receiving notifications for the hearing.
PPP lawyer Farooq H Naek raised reservations over the two judges of the top court included in the 9-member larger bench.
With utmost respect, I’m opposing the induction of Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Muzahir Ali Naqvi to the bench in the light of dissenting notes of Justice Minallah and Justice Mandokhel, Naek said.
Later the hearing was adjourned until Monday by the CJP Bandial.
Suo Moto Hearing
Earlier day Supreme Court Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial had taken Suo motu notice and formed a nine-member bench to hear the case.
The bench held its first hearing yesterday.
During the hearing, Justice Athar Minallah remarked that it is to be seen whether provincial assemblies were dissolved as per the Constitution or not. While Justice Shah wondered whether the assemblies can be dissolved on someone’s dictation.
Earlier at the outset of the hearing, the court observed that the authority for giving the date of the elections after the dissolution of the assembly needs clarification.
The Chief Justice observed that the court had to hear three matters: the timeframe of 90 days for elections under Article 224, the president’s authority to announce the date of polls, and who had the authority to announce the date.
He said that the apex court had the 10th February order of a high court and several other factors in front of it.
The Chief Justice observed that the court had to hear three matters: the timeframe of 90 days for elections under Article 224, the president’s authority to announce the date of polls, and who had the authority to announce the date.
He said that the apex court had the 10th February order of a high court and several other factors in front of it.
Issuance of Notice
Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday remarked that the violation of the Constitution would not be tolerated, saying elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa should be held on time.
The apex court issued notices to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), President Arif Alvi, federal, Punjab, and KP governments, members of the Pakistan Democratic Movement, the Supreme Court Bar Association president, the Pakistan Bar Council vice president, and others in the case.
At the outset, CJP Bandial said the bench would hear three related cases and determine who was supposed to give the elections’ dates. He said it was an important case and should be dealt with in line with the Constitution. The apex court, he said, would not tolerate a violation of the constitution.
