PHC seeks replies in oath challenge

Express Tribune

2 days ago

The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has issued notices to the federal government, the Attorney General of Pakistan, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), and other parties in response to constitutional petitions filed by Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur and Provincial Assembly Speaker Babar Saleem Swati. The petitioners have challenged the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court's directive, which authorized the Governor to administer oaths to members elected on reserved seats outside the assembly premises. The court has sought written replies from all respondents by August 5.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Ejaz Anwar and Justice Faheem Wali presided over the hearing. During proceedings, the judges raised serious constitutional questions and expressed skepticism over the maintainability of the petitions, especially that of the Chief Minister. Justice Ejaz Anwar remarked that the matter primarily concerns the Speaker of the Assembly and not the Chief Minister, stating, "The Speaker is the affected party here. The Chief Minister is not an aggrieved person." Justice Faheem Wali also questioned Gandapur's legal standing, asking, "In what capacity has the Chief Minister filed this petition? He already fulfilled his role."
The hearing saw the presence of K-P Advocate General Shah Faisal Utmankhel, Additional Attorney General Sanaullah, Speaker's counsel Waqar Khan, and other legal representatives. Justice Ejaz Anwar, while addressing the Advocate General, noted that had the oath not been administered, the members would not have been able to vote in the Senate elections. "The fact that they voted shows the oath was essential," he observed.
Speaker Swati and CM Gandapur, through their respective counsels, contended that the oath-taking held at Governor House was unconstitutional. They argued that Article 65 of the Constitution clearly stipulates that members must take oath within the Assembly, and that the Speaker had not refused to administer the oath - the session was simply adjourned due to a lack of quorum.
The petitions further claim that Article 255(2), which allows for alternative oath-taking arrangements in case of impossibility, was misapplied. "There was no refusal from the Speaker or the Chief Minister. A session had already been convened. Therefore, the conditions for invoking Article 255(2) were not met," the petitioners argued. They maintained that the Chief Justice's administrative directive instructing the Governor to administer the oath was a constitutional overreach.
The oath-taking ceremony, held at the Governor House on a Sunday, followed a request made to the Chief Justice by newly elected members on reserved seats. In their letter, they expressed concerns over being denied the opportunity to vote in the upcoming Senate elections. Acting on this letter, the Registrar of the High Court issued an official directive, authorizing the Governor to administer the oath under Article 255(2)".