In a recent development, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has rejected the Election Commission’s plea for a review concerning the Punjab elections.
The matter was heard by a three-judge panel led by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal. The Election Commission had requested a week’s extension to present additional arguments based on the detailed judgment previously provided by the Supreme Court regarding the Punjab elections.
During the hearing, the Election Commission’s representative argued that the Supreme Court’s previous decision laid out the framework for the Punjab elections. The Commission sought time to discuss supplementary grounds in light of this comprehensive judgment. However, Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal refused the request for more time, stating that the court is currently focused on the revision petition and not on who has the authority to set the election date.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar, part of the bench, emphasized that the revision case should not introduce new points that were not raised in the original case. The Commission’s representative mentioned wanting to refer to the Workers’ Party case, but Justice Muneeb Akhtar pointed out that the court had already addressed these matters in their arguments.
Regarding the Election Commission’s authority, Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal reminded them that holding elections is not just a power but a constitutional responsibility. The Commission’s counsel argued that they are responsible for conducting elections effectively, which led Justice Muneeb Akhtar to suggest addressing these points in a separate case.
Justice Ejaz-ul-Ahsan questioned the mistakes in the detailed decision of the Punjab elections case. Justice Muneeb Akhtar replied that the Constitution clearly specifies that elections should take place within 90 days. Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan emphasized that the constitutional mandate regarding the timing of elections cannot be altered, and the Election Commission cannot delay elections beyond the 90-day period.
The Election Commission’s lawyer argued that certain exceptions have been made regarding the 90-day deadline for valid reasons. They also claimed that there were errors in the Supreme Court’s decision about the Election Commission’s objectives.
Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan referred to Article 218 Clause 3, which states that the Election Commission is responsible for “organizing and conducting” elections within the prescribed 90-day period. They questioned how the Election Commission justified delaying the elections.
The lawyer for the Election Commission responded that the Constitution mandates transparent and fair elections. Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan inquired whether, according to their argument, if transparency isn’t ensured over a five-year period, elections would not be held. The Commission’s lawyer clarified their stance, leading to confusion about their defense.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the Election Commission’s review petition concerning the Punjab elections.
