A day after Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail wrote harsh dissenting notes on the March 1 ruling on the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa elections, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial said that it was just their "opinion" and had nothing to do with the current case.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan made the statement as the Supreme Court resumed hearing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) petition challenging the decision of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) regarding the elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The five-member larger bench hearing the plea is presided over by CJP Bandial. The bench also consists of Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
The PTI had challenged the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) decision to defer the Punjab elections till October 8.
As the financial and security agencies announced their unwillingness to support the election, the electoral board made its announcement.
The governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa then requested the electoral board hold general elections on the same day (October 8) as the Punjab elections due to the mounting security risks posed by terrorist organizations operating in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border regions.
Mansoor Usman Awan, the newly appointed solicitor general for Pakistan, was welcomed by CJP Bandial at the beginning of the hearing.
The court will review ECP's jurisdiction in accordance with yesterday's order, he said and will consider the ruling coalition parties' request to join the lawsuit at a later time.
"Democracy and the rule of law are two sides of the same coin." "Mutual respect, perseverance, and law and order are all necessary," CJP Bandial stated.
The chief justice said, "Regarding the March 1 decision, I believe that the president has the legal authority to announce the date of the elections." File a different petition if you want more information about the March 1 decision, the CJP advised. The "basic question" in this case was whether or not the ECP might change the election date, he added.
The CJP stated, "If the ECP has the power, then the situation will be settled."
The Attorney General, on the other hand, argued that if the court's judgment was 4-3, then there was no order. He continued by saying that the president cannot announce the election date if there is no judicial injunction.
At this point, CJP Bandial noted that the issue at hand was the delay rather than the announcement of the election date. Elections were essential to a democracy, he remarked.
On the other hand, advocate Tariq Bashir has criticized the chief justice for his recent remarks regarding the dissenting notes of two judges. He said, "Bandial is bullshiting. This is what is central to the note written by Shah and Mandokhel JJ. CJ is again failing to see the writing on the wall by hiding behind technicalities and legal niceties. The note clearly says the matter is still pending before the high courts, and that's where it should be decided, plus it also criticizes the way suo moto powers are exercised selectively by CJ, making it a "one-man show". Most crucially the note dismisses the suo moto proceedings by a majority of 4-3 since the opinion of 2 judges Afridi and Minallah is still part of the judgment. Bandial CJ may be referring to his powers regarding the constitution of benches for which Supreme Court Rules may be amended but the immediate effect of the note is what I described above."
"Plus, before forming the new bench, nothing expressed was mentioned regarding the opinions of Yahya Afridi and Athar Minallah, who have dismissed the proceedings/petitions on account of those not being maintainable," he added.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan made the statement as the Supreme Court resumed hearing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) petition challenging the decision of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) regarding the elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The five-member larger bench hearing the plea is presided over by CJP Bandial. The bench also consists of Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan, and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
The PTI had challenged the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) decision to defer the Punjab elections till October 8.
As the financial and security agencies announced their unwillingness to support the election, the electoral board made its announcement.
The governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa then requested the electoral board hold general elections on the same day (October 8) as the Punjab elections due to the mounting security risks posed by terrorist organizations operating in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border regions.
Mansoor Usman Awan, the newly appointed solicitor general for Pakistan, was welcomed by CJP Bandial at the beginning of the hearing.
The court will review ECP's jurisdiction in accordance with yesterday's order, he said and will consider the ruling coalition parties' request to join the lawsuit at a later time.
"Democracy and the rule of law are two sides of the same coin." "Mutual respect, perseverance, and law and order are all necessary," CJP Bandial stated.
The chief justice said, "Regarding the March 1 decision, I believe that the president has the legal authority to announce the date of the elections." File a different petition if you want more information about the March 1 decision, the CJP advised. The "basic question" in this case was whether or not the ECP might change the election date, he added.
The CJP stated, "If the ECP has the power, then the situation will be settled."
The Attorney General, on the other hand, argued that if the court's judgment was 4-3, then there was no order. He continued by saying that the president cannot announce the election date if there is no judicial injunction.
At this point, CJP Bandial noted that the issue at hand was the delay rather than the announcement of the election date. Elections were essential to a democracy, he remarked.
On the other hand, advocate Tariq Bashir has criticized the chief justice for his recent remarks regarding the dissenting notes of two judges. He said, "Bandial is bullshiting. This is what is central to the note written by Shah and Mandokhel JJ. CJ is again failing to see the writing on the wall by hiding behind technicalities and legal niceties. The note clearly says the matter is still pending before the high courts, and that's where it should be decided, plus it also criticizes the way suo moto powers are exercised selectively by CJ, making it a "one-man show". Most crucially the note dismisses the suo moto proceedings by a majority of 4-3 since the opinion of 2 judges Afridi and Minallah is still part of the judgment. Bandial CJ may be referring to his powers regarding the constitution of benches for which Supreme Court Rules may be amended but the immediate effect of the note is what I described above."
"Plus, before forming the new bench, nothing expressed was mentioned regarding the opinions of Yahya Afridi and Athar Minallah, who have dismissed the proceedings/petitions on account of those not being maintainable," he added.