The Supreme Court by Sunni Unity Council has issued a detailed decision on the case of specific seats in the Parliament, in which it has been said that the Election Commission is the guarantor of the democratic process in the country and the fourth pillar of the government, the Election Commission failed to fulfill its role in February 2024.
The 70-page detailed judgment issued on Monday was authored by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.
The decision said that ‘Election Commission continued to fight the case as the main opposing party, the main task of Election Commission is to conduct clean and transparent elections.’
According to the judgement: ‘In elections, the major stake lies with the public, an electoral dispute is fundamentally different from other civil disputes, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is a political party. The Election Commission’s decision of March 1 has no legal status.
The decision of the Peshawar High Court is null and void, transparent elections are necessary for the will of the people and democracy, Tehreek-e-Insaf is entitled to specific seats in the National Assembly, so the Election Commission should notify the candidates of Tehreek-e-Insaf on specific seats, the people’s vote. An important component of democratic governance, the Constitution empowers the people to chart their own democratic path.
The court wrote in a detailed decision that the notification of the members of the National and Provincial Assembly who were controversially elected to specific seats in the Parliament are canceled from May 6, 2024. Peshawar High Court should have sent the matter back to the Election Commission under Article 218 of the Constitution and Sections 4 and 8 of the Election Act instead of deciding on the application regarding specific seats of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf.
Explaining the relief given to PTI, the Supreme Court said that ‘PTI’s request to become a party in the case was before us. Tried hard to understand how so many independent candidates can succeed in a parliamentary democracy based on a political party system? No satisfactory answer has been given to this question, the PTI’s claim that independent candidates were also PTI candidates, according to PTI voters voted for them because they were PTI candidates.’
In the detailed decision, eight judges expressed reservations on the dissenting note of two judges and said that ‘Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan declared the majority decision of July 12 to be against the constitution, in the manner in which the two judges gave the majority decision. But it is not appropriate to express disagreement.
Criticizing the remarks of two judges of the Supreme Court declaring the decision of July 12 unconstitutional, he said that the action of Justice Aminuddin and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan is against the position of Supreme Court judges.
How did you get relief when Tehreek-e-Insaf was not a party?
In legal and political circles, there was a lot of criticism on the decision of 12 July 2024 regarding how relief can be given to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf, which was not a petitioner in the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
This section contains related reference points (Related Nodes field).
In the detailed decision on this matter, it has been said that ‘in this case, an application was filed on behalf of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf to become a party. As a general rule, such an application is filed first and a decision on becoming a party to it is made first. But this is not an ordinary case but a very important case regarding the constitution, fundamental rights and the people electing their own rulers, who legislate for them and administer the state.
“Whether it is PTI, Sunni Ittehad Council or any other political party, the most important task for the Supreme Court is to protect the right of the people to vote under Article (2) 17 and 19.” Therefore, there is no weight in the argument that the Supreme Court deviated from the prevailing legal procedure and gave relief to the PTI before the decision on its plea to become a party.
The court ordered to release the majority judgment on specific seats in Urdu language and further asked that the Urdu translation be made a part of the case record and also uploaded on the website.
This court has said in several cases while doing complete justice, the court is not bound by any technical rule.
It is further written in the judgment that ‘Rule 94 is in conflict with the Constitution and the Election Act 2017, under Rule 94 is related to the procedure of allotment of certain seats, the election rules can only be made in accordance with the Election Act, in the election rules such No matter can be incorporated which is not contained in the Election Act, Rule 94 Explanation states that a political party shall be deemed to have an election symbol, Rule 94 Explanation Article 51(6) of the Constitution and Election Contradictory to Section 106 of the Act, non-allotment of reserved seats in the absence of election marks is an additional penalty by the Election Commission.’
Opinion on the decision to withdraw the bat sign
The judgment said that if the Supreme Court had clarified the constitutional rights of the party in the bat mark case, there would have been no confusion. The Election Commission also did not clarify the constitutional rights of the PTI in its order. It should have been kept in mind that the election schedule has already been released, no one can be punished without a clear law, laws that curtail or restrict the rights given in the constitution can only be reviewed narrowly, in a democracy. Minimum interference with individual or collective rights should be ensured, the penalty for not conducting intra-party elections is nothing more than withdrawal of election symbol, withdrawal of election symbol does not mean that the constitutional rights of the political party have ended.
What was the short decision of the Supreme Court on specific seats?
Of the 13 judges of the Supreme Court, eight supported the decision while five dissented.
On July 12, 2024, the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Peshawar High Court and the Election Commission regarding reserved seats and said in the decision that ‘Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf is entitled to reserved seats.’
The Supreme Court further said in the brief judgment that ‘the elimination of the election symbol does not end the right of a political party to participate in the election. PTI should submit the list regarding specific seats within 15 days.
What was said in the detailed dissenting note of the judges?
Two judges of the Supreme Court, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Afghan, while issuing a minority decision, said that it is a proven fact that the Sunni Ittehad Council did not participate in the general elections as a political party, even the chairman of the Sunni Ittehad Council. He contested as an independent. While PTI was not a party in the present case, it would have to go beyond the jurisdiction conferred in Articles 175 and 185 to grant relief. To give relief to PTI, Article 51, Article 63 and Article 106 of the Constitution will have to be suspended.
The two judges have further written in their dissenting note that ‘no objection was raised in any court proceedings that the members did not join the Sunni Ittehad Council, Tehreek-e-Insaf was not a party in the Election Commission or the High Court, while the decision in the Supreme Court was not raised. Even till the release, PTI was not a party.’
While the dissenting note of Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa and Justice Jamal Mandukhel said that ‘PTI or any of its leaders have not challenged the Election Commission’s decision to declare him as an independent member, however, in view of this fact, the electoral applications As the proceedings are ongoing, the court may consider the commission’s declaration of PTI candidates as independent, candidates who have not submitted any other declaration till the date of withdrawal of nomination papers are part of the PTI parliamentary party. are,
The Election Commission should include PTI with other political parties and distribute specific seats.
#Election #Commission #play #democratic #role #elections #Supreme #Court
2024-09-24 12:00:09
