SC rebukes ‘misconceived’ ECP clarification request, orders immediate implentation of reserved seats verdict

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

What has ECP (Election Commissioner of Pak) has shown , together with Qazi the corrupt , that 2 bad apples can hold , 224 Million people hostage

They have made mockery of our Constitution , and Right of People

Finally going as far as to not respect wishes of 8 Judges of Supreme court

 

[Taimoor]

In that case, almost all yo*thias should be in jail.

You were making a lot of noises, now chock on this:

Thread 'Supreme Court Reserved Seats detailed judgement issued'

Yesterday at 9:27 AM

In a detailed ruling on the case concerning reserved seats, the 13-member full bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that the Election Commission, as a constitutional body, failed to conduct free and fair elections on February 8, 2024. The court criticized the Chief Election Commissioner and his fellow members for their inability to fulfill their constitutional duty, leading to a breakdown in the democratic process.

The Supreme Court's decision further emphasized that the Chief Election Commissioner and his colleagues should immediately resign from their positions. The country’s...

• Cash gk
• Replies: 29
• Forum: Pakistani Siasat

• 

 

[prothought]

You were making a lot of noises, now chock on this:

Thread 'Supreme Court Reserved Seats detailed judgement issued'

Yesterday at 9:27 AM

In a detailed ruling on the case concerning reserved seats, the 13-member full bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared that the Election Commission, as a constitutional body, failed to conduct free and fair elections on February 8, 2024. The court criticized the Chief Election Commissioner and his fellow members for their inability to fulfill their constitutional duty, leading to a breakdown in the democratic process.

The Supreme Court's decision further emphasized that the Chief Election Commissioner and his colleagues should immediately resign from their positions. The country’s...

• Cash gk
• Replies: 29
• Forum: Pakistani Siasat

• 

I couldn't spare time to read the detailed judgement. We'll see if they have provided the reasoning for their order in this detailed judgement. I don’t think these judges could ever provide constitutional basis for their order. However, if you can find any answers in this judgement to my questions, please feel free to enlighten us with that nobel reasoning. But I doubt a yo*thia is ever capable of doing that.

Here are my questions.

• PTI was not a party in that case. How could the court give these seats to PTI? Under which clause of law or article of the constitution
• Neither anyone during the proceedings of that case pleaded for the reserved seats to be given to PTI. Quite contrary to that, even the lawyers of the complainants explicitly stated that PTI was not a party in the case and the reserved seats could not be given to PTI.
• There are many aspects in their short order/judgement apparently in violation of the law/constitution.
  • PTI was not eligible to issue certificates to its candidates. PTI tried to deceive the ECP by having fake/sham internal elections. The ECP refused to accept those sham internal elections and so It was not eligible to get an election symbol either. So, many PTI supported candidates submitted certificates issued by another political party while many others did not. How can these judges now order ECP to accept all those candidates as the PTI MNAs? These judges are trying to overwrite the concerned laws, the election act. They are doing that intentionally and with mala fide intention.
  • After the elections, PTI supported candidates formally joined that political party in the NA. They were allocated seats in the assebly accordingly. They acted as the MNAs of that political party for many months. Now the judgement of these eight judges orders the ECP to declare them as PTI’s MNAs. How? Can they withdraw their previous requests joining that political party? Can they join PTI after so many months? The law gives only 3 days for that. This is again an attempt by these rogue judges to overstep the law.
  • Some PTI supported MNAs did not join any political party in the NA. So, they are supposed to be independent MNA after the judgement. These judges are now insisting them to be declared as PTI MNAs without even them submitting any application (again within three days after the taking oath as MNA). This is again an mala fide attempt by these rogue judges to overstep the law. I wish these rogue, disgraceful, and dishonest judges be tried under the article 6 of the constitution.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Here are my questions.

• PTI was not a party in that case. How could the court give these seats to PTI? Under which clause of law or article of the constitution

Article 187, clause 1
Article 17, clause 2
Article 19

187(1) grants the Supreme Court the authority to issue all such directions, orders, or decrees as may be necessary to do complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. The SC has invoked this article

17(2) grants the citizens a fundamental constitutional right to form and join political parties, and to participate in elections.

Article 19 grants citizens the right to freedom of expression, and vote is a form of expression as noted by the SC

• Neither anyone during the proceedings of that case pleaded for the reserved seats to be given to PTI. Quite contrary to that, even the lawyers of the complainants explicitly stated that PTI was not a party in the case and the reserved seats could not be given to PTI.

This too has been clarified in the detailed judgement:

"......PTI, which has been granted relief in the present case, is before us with an application for its impleadment as a party to the case. In the normal course of procedure for civil cases, the application for impleadment is first decided and the applicant formally made a party to the case, before granting him any relief in the case. This case, as explained in the opening part of this judgment, is not an ordinary civil case but a lis of the highest order, where democracy—a salient feature of the Constitution—and the fundamental right of the people (the electorate) to choose their representatives for the legislative and executive organs of the State is to be preserved, protected and defended. The procedural formality of first accepting PTI’s application and then granting it the relief does not carry much weight where the Court’s concern is the protection of the right of vote of the people (the electorate) guaranteed under Articles 17(2) and 19 of the Constitution, more than the right of any political party—whether it be SIC or PTI or any other party. .."

 

[Fatman17]

A bitter spat between ‘brother judges’, which had been simmering for quite some time, came to a head on Monday as differences between them were reflected in a judgement issued by the top court — something many legal experts termed ‘unprecedented’.

In a 70-page verdict regarding the reserved seats, senior puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah responded to the observations made by Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan in their dissenting notes.


“We feel constrained to observe, with a heavy heart, that our two learned colleagues in the minority […] have made certain observations in their dissenting judgement of Aug 3, 2024, which do not behove judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the highest court of the land,” regretted Justice Shah.

Read in detail: https://www.dawn.com/news/1860811