LAHORE: A citizen has filed a petition in the Lahore High Court (LHC) against amendment to Section 57 of the Elections Commission Act, 2017, authorizing the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to announce the election date.
Munir Ahmed through senior advocate Azhar Siddique filed the petition raising 13 law points including whether the provisions of the Election Act, 2017 could be relied upon to delay the general elections beyond the mandatory 90-day period.
He submitted the aforesaid amendment is ultra-vires Article 48, 58, 105, 107, 224 read with Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as a result of which, the amendment should be set aside and declared as unconstitutional.
It was further prayed to the court that as far as the mandate of the Constitution is concerned, the tenure of the National Assembly for a 5-year term needs to be completed and any early dissolution with the sole purpose of delaying the general elections for more than 60 to 90 days is ultra vires the Constitution.
“Whether a harmonious interpretation of the Constitution would mean that the entire process of delimitation and notification of constituencies is to be carried out by ECP within a period of 36 days from the date of dissolution of Assemblies to comply with the 90-day mandatory period provided under Article 224(2),” the petitioner’s counsel inquired.
“Whether the statutory time limits under the Act can override the constitutional time limit of 90 days stipulated in Article 224(2) of the Constitution,” he asked further. “Whether the Constitution grants ECP an exclusive authority and responsibility to announce the election dates, or does it require consultation with the President or any other authority”.
It was contended in the petition that Article 224 (2) of the Constitution commands absolute fidelity. Therefore, once the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies are dissolved, elections must be conducted within 90 days.
Earlier in August, the court, in the case of Muhammad Sibtain Khan and others versus ECP, held that “the holding of elections cannot be placed at the will, i.e., power howsoever bonafide expressed or exercised of any particular agency or forum, and howsoever exalted its creation or position may be. Because democracy demands elections, the Constitution commands elections”.
The petitioner alleged that the “instant constitutional crisis and deadlock are created solely to favour one political party.” The petitioner’s counsel stated that such a move infringes upon the principles of democracy and the right to representation.
Advocate Siddiqui, in his closing arguments, stated that the Constitution does not grant ECP the exclusive authority and responsibility to announce election dates and it expressly requires consultation by ECP with the President.
“The deliberate delay in announcing the election date and the failure to consult with the President violates the principles of the separation of powers amongst the different branches of the government, as outlined in the Constitution,” he stated.
“ECP has no discretionary powers in scheduling elections,” he concluded.
