Supreme Court stays LHC order on election tribunals

ISLAMABAD:

An expanded five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected PTI’s objections and stayed the Lahore High Court’s decision and the Pakistan Election Commission’s notification setting up eight tribunals in Punjab pending its final verdict in the case.

The larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa was hearing a petition challenging the LHC’s decision to set up tribunals to settle election disputes.

The Supreme Court, also comprising Justices Aminuddin Khan, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, held that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the Chief Justice of the LHC should hold a serious consultation on the election tribunals.

On May 29, the single judge bench of the LHC headed by Justice Shahid Karim directed the ECP to appoint additional election tribunals for Punjab in view of the nominations sent by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It ruled that under Article 219(c) read with Article 222(b) of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the LHC has precedence in the appointment of election tribunals under Section 140 of the Election Act, 2017.

Later, on June 12, the Chief Justice of the LHC constituted eight election tribunals as per the May 29 order, forcing the ECP to challenge the decision.

The hearing before the Supreme Court began on Thursday with a heated exchange between CJP Isa and PTI lawyer Niazullah Niazi, who objected to the appointment of the Chief Justice to the panel.

However, Niazi’s appeal was quickly dismissed by Justice Isa. “Your appeal has been noted. Please sit down. This matter is a matter between the Election Commission and the (LHC) Chief Justice. Why does a private person have such interest in this case?” he remarked to Niazi.

“Why don’t you refer Niazullah Niazi’s case to the Pakistan Bar Association? Are we here to be insulted? Enough,” the CJP continued. “We are aware of your (Niazi’s) political affiliation and will not tolerate continued disregard for justice. This must stop.”

Justice Isa stressed that the authority to constitute the benches now rests with the Committee on Practice and Procedure of the Supreme Court, ending the era when this prerogative was vested in the Chief Justice.

Niazi, referring to PTI founding chairman Imran Khan, said that “the one in jail” had objected to the removal of his election symbol.

The CJP responded that the court had provided Imran with a video link from prison but no objection was raised at that time.

“(PTI lawyer) Ali Zafar has not raised any objections in the internal party election process either. This defamation of institutions must stop. Newspaper headlines are raising the question of how the body was formed. The era of people’s decisions is over. Now the committee has the authority to form bodies.”

Justice Mandokhail also observed that the courts were not acting on the basis of the will of the public.

CJP Isa then asked ECP counsel Sikandar Bashir Mohmand how many tribunals were required.

The lawyer replied that the tribunals needed nine judges. “We have no objection to consultations. However, there should be a balance between dictation and consultation,” he added.

Justice Abbasi enquired about the meaning of balance and indicated whether the counsel had sought two judges, each selected by the ECP and the LHC CJ.

The lawyer stressed the need for serious consultation and called for the suspension of the Supreme Court’s decision to facilitate the process.

The Supreme Court later adjourned the hearing indefinitely.

In its written order, the Supreme Court stayed both the LHC’s decision to constitute eight single-member election tribunals and the ECP’s notification of April 26. The court ordered that after the appointment of the new chief provincial judge, a “meaningful consultation” should be held between the chief justice of the LHC and the CEC.