The Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa election delay issue was decided by the Supreme Court.

 

The judgment was made by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial on the issue involving the delay of elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, according to the facts.

The judgment was made by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial on the issue involving the delay of elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, according to the facts.

The Supreme Court overturned the Election Commission’s decision on March 22 and ruled that the Election Commission lacked the legal jurisdiction to make this choice and that it was not permitted to do so under the Constitution or the legislation.

The Electoral Commission’s unlawful judgment resulted in 13 days being wasted, according to the Supreme Court, which reinstated the election timetable with a few minor revisions and ruled that the election program needed to be changed.

Punjab elections are scheduled for May 14 as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In the verdict, the Supreme Court said that elections will be held in Punjab on May 14, nomination papers should be submitted by April 10, the final list will be released by April 19 and election symbols will be released on April 20.

The Supreme Court ordered the government to provide funds and release 21 billion by April 10 and directed the Election Commission to submit a report on the receipt of funds to the Supreme Court and said that in case of non-submission of the funds, the court will issue an appropriate order.

Regarding the election in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Supreme Court said in the verdict that the lawyer did not give arguments regarding Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, a separate petition should be filed regarding Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the court will issue an appropriate order on it, the lawyer of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Governor withdrew from the case. , Khyber Pakhtunkhwa election should be referred again.

The Supreme Court directed that the caretaker Punjab government, Chief Secretary, and IG should support security and the provincial government should also cooperate with the Election Commission while the federal government should fulfill its constitutional responsibility and the Election Commission should provide full cooperation and facilitation.

Election postponement case decision reserved

Yesterday, a three-member bench headed by the Chief Justice reserved the case of postponing the elections on PTI’s pleas.

The Chief Justice had remarked that the government did not provide any material on which the elections could be postponed, while the obstacles were not informed and there was no response to the option of political negotiations.

Justice Umar Atta Bandial said that people say that they are above the law, but people want decisions to be made by arbitrary judges.

Details of hearings of election postponement case

It should be noted that a nine-member bench was formed to hear the case on the issue of elections in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the nine-member bench formed by the Chief Justice was first reduced to five and then a three-member bench.

Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Mazahir Ali Naqvi, Justice Yahya Afridi, and Justice Athar Manullah are among those who refused the hearing.

At the end of the first hearing held on March 27, the court issued notices to the federal, Punjab, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governments and the Election Commission seeking their response.

In the second hearing held in the Supreme Court on March 28, Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal remarked that they do not want to prolong the proceedings, the simple question of whether the Election Commission has the authority to move the date forward or not.

Justice Jamal Mandukhel had remarked that ‘who can take the elections forward, the constitution is silent here, shouldn’t the parliament amend the constitution?’ While Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that “it would be best if the Parliament amends it, the question is what will happen to the elections that are to be held until the amendment is made”.

During the hearing, the issue of the non-availability of funds for conducting

the elections were discussed, on which Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial remarked that ‘If the salaries of other people, including me, are cut to conduct the elections, then the important task like the elections has been completed. can go.

In the third hearing held in the Supreme Court on March 29, Justice Jamal Mandukhel remarked that 4 judges rejected the petitions of PTI, according to our calculations, the decision is a court of four justices, and the Chief Justice has not yet made a ruling. When there was no order from the court, how did the President give the date What process did the Electoral Commission use to publish the schedule?

In the fourth hearing held on March 30, Justice Aminuddin, while in the fifth hearing held on March 31, another judge of the bench, Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel, also excused himself from hearing the case, after which Justice Umar Atta Bandial headed by Chief Justice. A three-member bench consisting of Ejaz-ul-Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar decided to proceed with the case.

In the last hearing on April 3, the Attorney General demanded that the decision of March 1 is in the ratio of four to three and that a full court bench should be formed, on which the Chief Justice said that the full court will be seen later, but did not reject the request.

He said that there is no political dialogue in the country, and the entire burden is on the federal government, if the federal government gives an assurance of holding elections, then something can be thought of.