Islamabad: The Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, has raised questions regarding the request made by the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association in a case concerning the holding of general elections within 90 days. Justice Isa expressed concerns that the idea of conducting elections within the mandated 90 days appeared implausible and instead sought practical suggestions.
A three-member bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan, and Justice Atar Minallah, subsequently issued notices to the Election Commission of Pakistan and the federal government regarding the case.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Isa questioned the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Abid Zubairi, regarding the similarity between the requests made by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Supreme Court Bar Association. PTI lawyer Ali Zafar confirmed that both requests were identical.
Justice Isa inquired about the date of the application’s submission, to which Abid Zubairi replied that it was filed on August 16, requesting elections within 90 days.
Justice Qazi Faiz Isa expressed his confusion about how the request was added to the case on the same day and whether an expedited hearing request had been made. Abid Zubairi responded affirmatively, stating that they had indeed requested an expedited hearing.
The Chief Justice further inquired if the Supreme Court Bar Association was determined to pursue elections regardless of the circumstances, to which Ali Zafar responded that they maintained a consistent stance on both requests.
Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan questioned why the Constitution did not specify when elections should occur if the census had been completed. Abid Zubairi suggested inquiring about Article 19 to find relevant provisions.
Justice Atar Minallah sought information about the census’s start and end dates, to which Abid Zubairi had no information. Chief Justice Isa recommended inquiring under Article 19.
Justice Qazi Faiz Isa highlighted the constitutional requirement for a new census and inquired about the reasons for the delay, asking who had postponed the census and when it began.
Abid Zubairi explained that the provisional population census took place in 2017, and the Chief Justice inquired why a new census had not started yet and who was responsible for the delay.
Justice Isa asked if it was written in the Constitution that elections should follow the 2017 census. Abid Zubairi reiterated their demand for elections within 90 days.
Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan inquired if they wanted elections within 90 days regardless of the circumstances, to which Abid Zubairi affirmed.
Justice Atar Minallah asked why it was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution that elections should be held 90 days after the census.
The Chief Justice stressed the importance of a new census and questioned the cause of the delay, emphasizing that this forum was not political. He also asked about the response to a letter received by the President from a lawyer, to which the petitioner, Munir Ahmed, explained that there had been no response.
The Chief Justice observed that it seemed the responsibility for the delay was being placed on the President. Abid Zubairi mentioned that the Council of Common Interests had consented to the census on April 12, 2021.
Justice Qazi Faiz Isa further inquired about which government was in power at the time, and Zubairi replied that it was the PTI government. The Chief Justice questioned why it took four years for the census to be approved, and who was responsible for the delay.
He also asked if the Constitution mandated elections following the 2017 census. Abid Zubairi replied that their demand was for elections within 90 days.
Justice Athar Minallah suggested that if a census is constitutionally required, it becomes a matter for the election commission to decide.
The Chief Justice pointed out that it seemed the President was being held responsible for the delay, even though there was a constitutional necessity for a new census.
Petitioner Munir Ahmed discussed the media debates and public discussions surrounding the election case, stating that this case had to be filed. He highlighted the criticism faced whether they filed a case or not.
The Chief Justice assured that they initiated filing crucial cases after the Practice and Procedure Act decision, and that there were extensive discussions in the media. He emphasized the importance of a prompt case filing.
Justice Athar Minallah instructed the filing of the case within 90 days for elections. However, the Chief Justice expressed doubts about the feasibility of the 90-day timeline, emphasizing the need to consider what is practical.
He also pointed out that the petitioner, Munir Ahmed, had completed his case and questioned why blame was placed on others for the delay. He mentioned that delays had consequences in constitutional matters.
Abid Zubairi argued that the President had declared the election date after amendments and that the authority was vested in the Election Commission.
The Chief Justice asked what would happen if the President did not fulfill his constitutional mandate and questioned the argument’s consistency. He suggested that the petitioner could have contacted the President if he had a different view during his tenure as Attorney General.
Justice Athar Minallah sought clarification on who should address the delay and its consequences, and the Chief Justice inquired if the President had breached the constitutional mandate.
Ali Zafar, the PTI lawyer, emphasized their case was about holding elections within 90 days, and the Chief Justice raised doubts about the compatibility of this argument with Article 48.
The Chief Justice underlined that the delay in constitutional duties had consequences and that the petitioners claimed that all this was an excuse for delaying the elections. He also questioned the feasibility of holding elections within 90 days after delimitation and the census.
The hearing regarding the holding of the general election was adjourned until November 2.
