— Chief Justice turns down full court formation plea, proposes larger bench
ISLAMABAD: The verdict on the petition moved by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) to challenge the decision of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to delay elections in Punjab until October 8 was reserved to be announced by the Supreme Court on Tuesday (today).
The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial and including Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar, heard all parties, including the PTI, ECP and ruling Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) coalition counsels, before reserving the judgment.
During the hearings, which spanned over a week, the case witnessed high drama when two judges of the original five-judge bench, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Amin-ud-Din Khan, recused themselves from the case.
Subsequently, the chief justice formed a new bench comprising himself, Justice Ahsan, and Justice Akhtar to proceed with the matter.
Over the weekend, a meeting of PDM leaders expressed “no confidence” in the bench, leading to a call for a full court to hear the case. Chaired by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to “devise a future strategy” for the government, the meeting demanded that present court proceedings be terminated by accepting a different judgment.
However, on Monday, the Supreme Court said the formation of a full court to take up the petition was not an option and the government could instead request a larger bench to hear the case.
Bandial’s offer of a larger bench to the government came after Shehbaz Sharif, through Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, formally requested the reconstitution of the bench hearing the case.
In the plea filed on behalf of the federation, the Supreme Court was requested to dismiss the election delay case in light of the March 1 judgment ruling that elections for the provincial assemblies in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa must be held within 90 days.
The petition said the proceedings in the current petition should be postponed in light of the observation passed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa, postponing all the proceedings in suo motu matters, which the chief justice “disregarded.”
“This […] bench, in view of submissions made in paragraphs 11 and 12, may graciously recuse from hearing the instant petition and a bench comprising of all remaining […] judges of this court, who did not hear [the matter previously] may kindly be constituted to decide the questions raised herein,” it requested.
BOYCOTT BOYCOTTED
As the hearing commenced, Farooq H. Naek, the PPP counsel, was asked if his party had ended its boycott against the court hearing. Justice Bandial remarked that political parties had expressed no confidence in the bench for the last 48 hours.
Justice Akhtar expressed his concern over the PPP lawyer’s presence and questioned how they could present their arguments if they didn’t have confidence in the bench.
To proceed with the hearing, Justice Akhtar requested Naek to read out the joint statement that was issued by coalition leaders last week expressing “complete no-confidence” in the bench.
However, Justice Akhtar expressed displeasure with the language used in the statement and said that the court would only hear Naek if he withdrew the statement.
The chief justice asked Naek to confirm in writing that his party did not boycott the hearing. Naek replied that his party had reservations on the maintainability of the petition, but confirmed that they had not boycotted the hearing.
Awan informed the court that the government worked under the Constitution and could not boycott the proceedings.
HEIGHTENED SECURITYÂ
Security outside the top court’s building in Islamabad has been beefed up ahead of the hearing. Videos from the site showed a large contingent of policemen, wearing bullet-proof vests and helmets, deployed outside the premises. The entry of any unauthorised person inside the court has been restricted.
According to a statement by the Islamabad police, there are threats of “terrorism” in the capital city, and there is a fear of malicious elements entering in the guise of lawyers. The police have requested lawyers to be vigilant for unknown persons.
The statement also clarified that permission from the court registrar is mandatory to attend the hearing, but there is no restriction on the entry of lawyers.
