ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa on Monday observed that it was “not possible” to meet the 90-day deadline for holding elections and lamented the lack of preparations of the petitioners.
The CJP passed the observation while hearing the petitions seeking timely elections within 90 days of the dissolution of the assemblies. The CJP is leading a three-member bench comprising himself, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan on the matter.
The pleas were filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) and others to ensure that polls in the country are held within the stipulated time period.
At the outset of the hearing, CJP Isa asked the SCBA when they had filed the petition and questioned why it was not listed for a hearing at once. He also asked the lawyer to give his arguments based on facts and lamented the petitioners’ lack of preparation.
When SCBA lawyer Abid Zuberi started to speak about the 2017 census, the CJP observed that the counsel was not speaking on facts. He also said that if the lawyer had so many issues about the census then why did he not file a plea between 2017-2021, adding that he was now raising questions about the issue after the process was completed.
However, the lawyer clarified that he was not taking a position that the 2023 census was wrong. On this point, Justice Minallah observed that those who were responsible for the delay in the census be held responsible and asked the counsel if he wanted polls in the country.
“Yes, that’s what we only want that elections be held in the country,” said the counsel.
However, CJP Isa stated that the SCBA’s petition was based on the census issue. At this, Justice Minallah inquired when the 90-day time period would end.
“90 day period will complete on November 3,” responded Zuberi.
“If we give orders to hold polls within 90 days will it be possible to hold the elections?” asked the CJP.
Zuberi then conceded that if the top court gives the order even then it will not be possible to hold the elections within 90 days.
The CJP then advised the lawyer to amend his petition, asking that if the president didn’t give a date, should the court issue a notice to him.
“President has immunity,” responded Zuberi.
“What can we do against the president? We can issue orders to restore our writ, if anyone is violating the Constitution then Article 6 will be applied,” remarked CJP Isa.
Zuberi then mentioned that the Supreme Court had ordered polls be held in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
At this, the CJP agreed with the lawyer but asked him if the matter was not sub judice and told the lawyer that they should file a contempt petition as no one was stopping them.
The CJP then remarked that one of the lawyers had written to the president to give an election date and wondered what happened with the letter.
Lawyer Munir Ahmed, who is one of the petitioners in the case, stated that they did not get any response from the president.
“Then you are holding the president responsible for the delay in elections,” remarked CJP Isa on this.
At this point, Justice Minallah interjected, stating that the census was a constitutional requirement and a delay in the elections was understandable. He then advised the lawyer to restrict his case to the issue of polls in 90 days.
“It is not possible to hold polls within 90 days tell us what is possible,” remarked CJP Isa.
Moving on, lawyer Anwar Mansoor Khan contended that after President Arif Alvi’s letter, it was the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) responsibility to give a date for the polls.
However, the CJP said that the president himself was asking for an opinion in the document that he was using in his arguments. He also asked if the court should give a decision based on a tweet.
The CJP then asked the SCBA president whose responsibility was to give a date for the polls. Who responded that it was the president’s prerogative.
“You are twisting things again, If the president is responsible then do you want action against the president?” CJP Isa asked Zuberi.
SCBA president then maintained that holding polls within 90 days was a constitutional requirement. But the CJP responded that the counsel was not pointing his fingers at the person responsible for not holding the polls within 90 days.
“If you talk about elections then we can give a decision but if you talk about the interpretation of the constitution then we will have to form a constitutional bench,” said CJP Isa.
He added that the bench had two questions to answer as to who was responsible for announcing the date of the polls and the other was if elections can be held within 90 days.
The CJP then adjourned the hearing till November 2 and in his written order’s given in the court stated that the petitioners are contending that the census was notified as an excuse to delay the elections.
“The petitioners said that holding the election in 90 days is a constitutional requirement. According to the petitioners, elections are not possible within 90 days after the delimitation of constituencies and the census,” said the court. The court then issued notices to the ECP and the federal government in the case.
