Supreme Court rejects ECP’s plea for review on Punjab polls verdict

Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) had rejected the Election Commission of Pakistan ( ECP’s) plea for review of top court’s verdict to hold Punjab Assembly  elections on May 14.

In a significant legal development, the review petition brought forth by the Election Commission faced dismissal.

The court emphasized its role in intervening when the constitution is violated, firmly asserting that no circumstances can exempt ECP from its responsibility, stated Justice Muneeb Akhtar.

Justice Muneeb further emphasized that the Constitution of Pakistan was not under the sole jurisdiction of the Election Commission; rather, it belonged to the people. He highlighted that the essence of the rule of law rested in this principle.

Justice Muneeb highlighted that if the Election Commission couldn’t hold elections within the mandated 90 days, the Supreme Court would step in.

He underscored that the Election Commission did not possess the sole authority to alter the election date, echoing Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s sentiment that the Constitution did not grant the Commission such power.

The Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial reinforced that changes to the election date must align with the Constitution and legal provisions, ruling out any alteration via executive order.

CJP Bandial urged against invoking Article 254, a constitutional provision relating to inconsistencies between federal and provincial laws, to justify actions.

CJP called for any errors in the decision to be brought to light, and mentioned that the Election Commission had pledged security and funding for the election’s conduction.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar pointed out that if the Election Commission faced difficulty conducting elections within 90 days, they should have filed a petition in the Supreme Court for guidance, as this approach had been outlined in a previous decision.

The resounding consensus among the judges was that the Election Commission lacked the authority to change the election date, underscoring that the Constitution and the law held sway over such matters.