Pakistan's capital, The Election Commission of Pakistan (also known as E has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its judgment setting May 14 as the date for elections in Punjab, a day after the government and opposition in principle agreed to hold elections simultaneously.
According to the provisions of section 58 of the Elections Act of the year 2017, ECP claimed in its argument that the sole authority for altering the election schedule rests with the commission. The fact that the ECP presented an updated election schedule following the highest court's order the day after the decision ordering polls to open on May 14 may be significant to note.
The ECP has filed a new petition asking the court to reverse its April 4 decision "in the interest of justice," stressing that Article 254 should be used to stifle the constitutional requirement to hold elections within 90 days but that the highest court should also take into account the circumstances on the ground. According to the provision, an act is not invalidated if time limitations are not met.
The review petition argued that the April 4 Supreme Court order was per incuriam (lack of jurisdiction) under the Constitution and that it must be reconsidered. "All provisions of the Constitution are required to be read together in harmony to make the provisions effective, workable, and meaningful," the review petition added.
Agreement on fair elections
According to the review petition, Punjab and KP are represented by 173 of the Constitution and 55 different National Assembly a place to sit respectively, out of a total of 326 seats, or around seventy-two of the assembly's entire membership.
The National Assembly's mandate ends in August 2023, which means that general elections must be held soon. According to ECP, the commission needs nonpartisan government apparatus to conduct the general elections impartially and in conformity with the rules and regulations.
The elections for 72% of the general seats in the National Assembly would inevitably lose their sanctity, objectivity, and fairness if they were held while permanent governments were in place in Punjab and KP, the petition urged the court to take into account.
The review petition recalled that the commission voiced its objections in writing during the hearing that resulted in the April 4 order. It further stated that the higher courts had not yet addressed the issue of harmonizing Article 218(3) and Article 224 with the provisions of the Elections Act and that it was one of first impressions.
The petition emphasized that the ECP has even been protected from legislative involvement by Article 222 and that parliamentary intervention cannot diminish, curtail, or limit the ECP's authority.
The petition argued the Supreme Court relied on Section 57 of the Elections Act to designate the president as authority for fixing the date when the assemblies stood dissolved by efflux of time and that because the Constitution is silent on the matter, Section 58 of the Elections Act applies.
The review petition argued that it is incomprehensible why the Supreme Court took on the task of choosing a polling date, which is unquestionably not the constitutional function assigned to the judicial organ of the state. It also added that the change of election schedule was the sole purview of ECP under Section 58 of the Elections Act.
The petition claimed that because the constitution is silent on the subject of shifting election dates, the Elections Act must be used as a fallback option.
Single domain as defined by Section 58
The petition emphasized that the election date is one of the most important phases of the schedule. The argument continued that the legislature understood that circumstances might occur that would necessitate changing the election dates when it passed sections 57 and 58 of the Elections Act.
For instance, the appeal cited how the general elections of 2008 were postponed by the ECP by 40 days due to the urgency and need of the time. For this reason, the legislature included the overriding clause "notwithstanding anything contained in Section 57" at the beginning of Section 58(1) when establishing Section 58, knowing full well that Section 57 lists items that are in conflict with what Section 58 would deem to be allowed.
It was highlighted in the petition that courts only interpret the law—they do not invent it. According to a literal interpretation of Section 58's provision, the ECP is responsible for changing the election schedule or announcing a new schedule in which the polling place is a crucial element or stage.
The review petition contended that there was no clause in the constitution or the statute that allowed the Supreme Court to exercise its authority to set the election date through an April 4 order and that the constitution was an organic document that develops and changes over time. The petition highlighted that setting or altering a date is an executive function and most definitely not a judicial function.
You must be logged in to post a comment.