Latest news with #ECP
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Reserved seats: ECP says majority judgement premised on ‘erroneous conclusion'
ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) submitted the majority judgement in the reserved seats case is premised on the erroneous conclusion that Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in addition to Sunni Ittehad Council(SIC) was before the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) and both sought allocation of the disputed reserved seats to 'SIC or to PTI'. Barrister Sikandar Bashir Mohmand filed seven formulations before the Constitution Bench, which is hearing the review against the SC judgment on reserved seats. He said that the PTI in its CMA 5913/ 2024 filed on 26-6-2024 did not pray for allocation of the reserve seats to 'PTI itself' or to 'either PTI or SIC'; instead PTI asserted; 'the denial by the ECP of reserve seats to the SIC will result in the national assembly and the provincial assemblies losing their representative character. These seats cannot be allowed to any other party.' The ECP submitted that CMA 5913/ 2024 is stated to have been filed under Order XXXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 (inherit powers of SCP) and not under Order V Rule 2 (2) which is the relevant Rule for an application for striking out or adding a party. Therefore, PTI did not formally seek 'impleadment' in Civil Appeals 333 and 334 of 2024. The majority judgement incorrectly describes CMA 5913/ 2024 as 'PTI's application for impleadment'. As PTI was evidently not party to proceedings before the ECP, PHC and SCP, no relief could have been lawfully granted to it, even by exercising power under Article 187 (1) of the Constitution. It submitted that the provisions of Article 51 and the Article 106 have been misconstrued in the majority judgement, which inter alia has distorted the scheme of the provisions of Article 51 and Article 106 as read with Section 104 of the Elections Act, 2017 and the Election Rules, 2017. The ECP stated that it is an essential component of the scheme of the provisions of Article 51 and Article 106 that the List of Priority for Seats Reserved for Women and Non-Muslims (Form 66) of each political party, as well as, the nomination papers for candidates in such list must be submitted and scrutinised prior to polling day and in parallel with filing and scrutiny of nomination papers of candidates contesting on general seats. The rationale being that the electors have notice of the candidates of the concerned 'political party' who may be elected on reserve seats before polling day. The direction in paragraph 9 of the majority judgement allowing the filing of the List of Priority for Seats Reserved for Women and Non-Muslims (Form 66) after the election has concluded and returned candidates have been notified is in conflict with the Election Programme and the democratic objective and rationale. The ECP stated that the timelines prescribed in paragraph 8 and 9 could only lawfully be prescribed by Parliament through legislation amending Article 51 Provisions (and Article 106 provisions), as well as, Sections 51, 66, 67 and 104 of the Elections Act, 2017. The said timelines could also not be prescribed without striking down the Election Programme dated 15-12-2023 as amended on 22-12-2023 read with Section 104 of the Elections Act, 2017. The ECP submitted that the power to 'alter' the Election Programme vests solely with the ECP under Section 58 of the Elections Act, 2017 read with Article 218 (3) and Article 219 (d), as well as, the last sentence of Article 222 of the Constitution. Therefore, in any event such timelines could not be prescribed by the SCP, even under Article 187 (1) of the Constitution. It contended that the timelines given in paragraphs 8-9 of the Majority Short Order are directly in conflict with the scheme and timeline in the Article 51 Provisions and also sections 51, 66, 67 and 104 of the Elections Act, 2017. Therefore, same could not be given in exercise of power under Article 187(1). Since PTI was not a party to proceedings before the ECP, PHC and SCP and neither did it make an express prayer for allocation of the Disputed Reserve Seats to itself, this specific matter was never 'a case or matter pending before it' in terms of Article 187 (1) in consequently relief to PTI by invoking Article 187 (1) is impermissible.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
ECP submits reply in reserved seats case
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has submitted its written statement to the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court hearing review petitions in the reserved seats case, stating that the PTI was never a party to the case before the SC. On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the ECP's December 22, 2023 order declaring the PTI's intra-party polls null and void. As a consequence of the SC verdict and its "misinterpretation" by the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024 general elections as independents. Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities. The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in the Supreme Court. On July 12, 2024, a full bench of the apex court through a majority of 8 to 5 resurrected the PTI as a parliamentary party, noting that 39 of the lawmakers who had submitted certificates of their affiliation with the PTI along with their nomination papers were already PTI lawmakers. The SC ruled that the remaining 41 lawmakers who had not submitted the affiliation certificates at the time of nomination papers' submission could do that now within a period of 15 days. The government later filed review petitions against the ruling and now a CB is hearing the case. In its reply, the ECP said the majority of judges who endorsed the July 12 order did not take note of the clarifications issued on September 14 and October 18. "Before these clarifications, the case was never presented before the full 13-member bench. The majority decision violated Article 10-A and Article 4 of the Constitution." The ECP stated that the majority judgment incorrectly mentioned that the PTI was present before the court. It contended that PTI never requested the reserved seats, nor did it seek them on any forum. It said through the July 12 decision, the SIC was substituted in place of PTI. It said the list for reserved seats is submitted before polling in accordance with the election schedule. However, the PTI was ordered to submit the list for reserved seats after the elections, which is contrary to the law. Additionally, it said, 39 members were declared as PTI members contrary to the legal procedure. Relief under Article 187 was granted beyond the scope of the court's jurisdiction and the ECP was not heard when Section 94 of the Election Act was invalidated. Meanwhile, the PPP has also submitted additional statements to the Supreme Court, claiming that the court's July 12 decision went beyond the petition and the relief sought. The real issue was simply whether the SIC was entitled to reserved seats. The matter of awarding reserved seats to PTI was never under consideration. This same question - whether SIC was entitled to reserved seats - was posed before the ECP, the Peshawar High Court, and the SC, it said. The party contended that the SC issued a decision on reserved seats that was unrelated to the actual petitions before it. The court exceeded its jurisdiction and granted relief that had never been requested. The PTI and the SIC are two distinct political parties, it added.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
ECP tells SC PTI was never party to reserved seats case
Listen to article The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has submitted its written statement to the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court hearing review petitions in the reserved seats case, stating that the PTI was never a party to the case before the SC. On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the ECP's December 22, 2023 order declaring the PTI's intra-party polls null and void. As a consequence of the SC verdict and its 'misinterpretation' by the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024, general elections as independents. Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities. The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in the Supreme Court. On July 12, 2024, a full bench of the apex court, through a majority of 8 to 5, resurrected the PTI as a parliamentary party, noting that 39 of the lawmakers who had submitted certificates of their affiliation with the PTI along with their nomination papers were already PTI lawmakers. The SC ruled that the remaining 41 lawmakers who had not submitted the affiliation certificates at the time of nomination paper submission could do so now within a period of 15 days. The government later filed review petitions against the ruling, and now a CB is hearing the case. In its reply, the ECP said the majority of judges who endorsed the July 12 order did not take note of the clarifications issued on September 14 and October 18. 'Before these clarifications, the case was never presented before the full 13-member bench. The majority decision violated Article 10-A and Article 4 of the Constitution.' The ECP stated that the majority judgment incorrectly mentioned that the PTI was present before the court. It contended that PTI never requested the reserved seats, nor did it seek them on any forum. It said through the July 12 decision, the SIC was substituted in place of PTI. It said the list for reserved seats is submitted before polling in accordance with the election schedule. However, the PTI was ordered to submit the list for reserved seats after the elections, which is contrary to the law. Additionally, it said 39 members were declared as PTI members contrary to the legal procedure. Relief under Article 187 was granted beyond the scope of the court's jurisdiction, and the ECP was not heard when Section 94 of the Election Act was invalidated. Meanwhile, the PPP has also submitted additional statements to the Supreme Court, claiming that the court's July 12 decision went beyond the petition and the relief sought. The real issue was simply whether the SIC was entitled to reserved seats. The matter of awarding reserved seats to PTI was never under consideration. This same question — whether SIC was entitled to reserved seats — was posed before the ECP, the Peshawar High Court, and the SC, it said. The party contended that the SC issued a decision on reserved seats that was unrelated to the actual petitions before it. The court exceeded its jurisdiction and granted relief that had never been requested. The PTI and the SIC are two distinct political parties, it added.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Slim chances of CB upholding July 12 ruling
Listen to article Contrary to the majority opinion of a full bench of the Supreme Court, which on July 12, 2024 ordered allocation of reserved seats to the PTI, a constitutional bench (CB) reviewing the order states that the PTI is itself to blame for not getting reserved seats after the Feb 2024 general elections. While hearing review petitions in the reserved seats case, the judges are wondering as to why the PTI did not challenge the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) orders to declare its candidates independent despite the fact that eminent lawyers were contesting elections on the PTI ticket. The judges are also consistently defending the January 13, 2024 order of the Supreme Court to declare PTI's intra party election illegal. The order had resulted in stripping the party of its election symbol Even the judge, who himself raised serious questions on the conduct of the ECP in his minority view, is criticizing the PTIs' "poor legal strategy" to get reserved seats and the decision of the PTI backed candidates to join the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), which had not contested in the general elections. A three-member bench led by former chief justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa announced the verdict in the PTI intra-party election case on the night of January 13, 2024the last date for submission of party symbols in the general elections. Since May 9, 2023, PTI leadership has been accusing the government of using coercive tactics to pressure its leaders into leaving the party. Even during the elections, PTI backed candidates were not allowed to run any campaign. Even nomination papers of some candidates were snatched before their submission. The bench led by Justice Qazi Faez Isa had compelled the ECP to announce the date for the general elections in consultation with the president. However, there was a serious clash between the former CJP and the PTI as the latter had filed a presidential reference for his removal during its rule. After January 13, 2024 order, the PTI had lost hope that it could get any relief from the Supreme Court led by CJP Isa and after the intra-party election case order, PTI counsel Latif Khosa had withdrawn the contempt petition filed against the ECP for not complying with the SC decision to provide level playing field to the PTI to contest the elections. Some lawyers ask as to why CJP Isa did not list the review petition against his order for hearing to clear up the ambiguity, if the ECP was misinterpreting the order by declaring PTI candidates independent. They note that if the SC could issue two clarifications in the Mubarak Sani case then why it could not take notice of the misinterpretation of its important ruling by the ECP, which is a constitutional body. Constitutional benches (CBs) have also been created in the Supreme Court and high courts in view of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which, according to the PTI, was passed using coercive tactics. The CB hearing review petitions against the SC's July 12, 2024 order in the seats case also comprises judges who are selected by the executive members in the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) after passage of the 26th amendment. No explanation is given as to why the CB committee did not give a recommendation to the JCP for the inclusion of the six judges who were part of the original bench that heard the reserved seats case. Currently, no one on the bench is backing the majority decision in the reserved seats case. Even two signatories of the majority judgement are not passing any remark in favour of the July 12 verdict. Justice Ali Baqar Najfi has given a surprise by using the term "biased" for the majority decision. Only Justice Salahuddin Panwar is showing interest in reading the majority judgement. Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar said they, being junior judges, should defend the judgement under review. He, however, urged the SIC counsel Faisal Siddiqi to highlight important points for the determination at this stage. Justice Aminuddin Khan, who is leading the bench, is consistent in his approach. He has been consistently raising questions about the relief given to the PTI by the majority judges on July 12, 2024. Justice Mussarat Hilali, who was a member of the bench which had given January 13, 2024 order in the intra-party election case, is expressing concern that the majority judgement discussed the PTI intra-party election case judgement, which was not challenged before them. Faisal Siddiqi said the majority judges criticized the ECP's conduct but they did not question the January 13 order. Siddiqi is trying to read the important portions of the July 12 judgement before the bench. There are very slim chances that majority judgment will be upheld by this bench. There is a criticism that the majority judges had done judicial overreach in this case. On the other hand, PTI lawyers are saying that majority judges had tried to restore democracy which is the salient feature of the Constitution. The hearing of the case is adjourned until June 16. If the PTI could not get reserved seats, then the situation may not change but if the ruling parties get reserved seats then they will be easily in a position to get two-thirds majority in parliament, enabling them to amend the Constitution. PPP through Farooq H Naek and Asad Abbasi have filed written replies in the reserved seats case. The PPP said the order under review contravenes established principles of constitutional interpretation. By devising a procedure not contemplated under the Constitution, the order ventures into legislative territory, contrary to this honorable court's consistent jurisprudence that "the function of the court is interpretation, not legislation." The reply states that it is a settled principle of this court that when the law prescribes a specific manner and procedure for doing something, it must be followed strictly without deviation. This principle alone warrants the recall of the order under review, it added.
Business Recorder
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
ECP reschedules hearing of Punjab LG polls delay case
ISLAMABAD: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has rescheduled till Monday the hearing of a case involving the delay in local government elections in Punjab that was scheduled tomorrow (Thursday). Chief Secretary Punjab Zahid Akhtar Zaman and Secretary LG Punjab Shakeel Ahmad Mian have been summoned by the ECP in this case. Before this case was rescheduled, the ECP officials, in a meeting with a Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) delegation, on Tuesday, had confirmed that the ECP would hear this case on Thursday. The ECP officials briefed the JI delegation regarding delay in the conduct of LG elections in Punjab and Islamabad, said an official statement issued after this meeting. But, later in the day, the poll body issued a delisting notice for Punjab LG polls delay case citing unavailability of the bench hearing this case on Thursday. Presently, the local bodies are in place in Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and cantonment boards but LG elections in Punjab and federal capital have been facing an inordinate delay since 2021. The local bodies' term in Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) expired on 14 February 2021 and in Punjab on 31 December 2021. The ECP is bound to hold LG elections within 120 days of the expiry of local bodies' term, under Section 219(4) of the Elections Act 2017. This law provides that the ECP shall hold elections to the local governments within 120 days of the expiry of the term of local governments of a province, cantonment or ICT. Article 218(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan provides that it shall be the ECP's duty to organise and conduct the elections, and to make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure that an election is conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law, and that corrupt practices are guarded against. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
