ISLAMABAD -UNS: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial said on Friday that the Supreme Court would not “sit idle” on its order on holding elections in Punjab on May 14 if the talks between the government and the PTI failed.
He passed these remarks as the top court resumed hearing a petition pertaining to one-day elections following three-day negotiations between the federal coalition and the opposition to agree on a specific date for nationwide polls.
After the negotiations came to an end on Tuesday, the PTI submitted a report to the court stating that no resolution was reached and requested that the court enforce its April 4 order regarding elections in Punjab.
In the last hearing on April 27, the three-member Supreme Court bench comprising CJP Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar — also made it clear to the negotiating parties that its April 4 order on Punjab Assembly elections had remained unchanged.
During today’s proceedings, the chief justice said that the government and the PTI could continue the negotiations “if both the parties were interested”, but at the same time expressed displeasure over their “lack of interest” in a substantial dialogue.
He also said that the court only had to see if both sides could agree on a date for elections, adding that the SC’s responsibility was to uphold the law and Constitution.
After conducting a hearing that lasted nearly two hours, the proceeding was adjourned, with the CJP saying that an appropriate order will be issued.
The hearing
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, PPP lawyer Farooq H. Naek, PTI leader Shah Mahmood Qureshi, PML-N’s Khawaja Saad Rafique and others were present as the proceeding commenced today.
At the outset of the hearing, the PPP counsel read out loud the coalition government’s report on talks with the opposition — which was submitted earlier today — in court. In its reply, the government stated that a “major breakthrough” was achieved during the dialogue.
The CJP noted that the response had been signed by the finance minister, emphasising the importance of political leadership in resolving political issues. Additionally, he pressed on the significance of ongoing discussions with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
“The matter in court is constitutional, not political,” the top judge remarked, stressing that the SC had left political matters to political parties.
He then asked why the approval of the IMF agreement and trade policy were important, to which Naek replied: “Getting the IMF loan is key for the budget.”
The PPP lawyer explained that without the assemblies it would be impossible to approve the budget. “We wouldn’t be in this crisis if the assemblies of Punjab and KP were not dissolved.”
“Because of this crisis, a lot of the court’s time is also being wasted,” he said, adding that the issue at hand would be resolved if an understanding was reached between the government and the opposition.
“Will the IMF loan be used for reserves or the repayment of debts?” Justice Bandial asked here, to which Naek responded that the answer to this question could only be given by the finance minister.
The CJP also inquired if the budget was formulated under the guidelines of the IMF package, referring to news reports that stated the tranche would only be sanctioned if friendly countries provide a loan to Pakistan.
He stressed that the Constitution mandated holding polls within 90 days of the dissolution of assemblies, emphasising that the court had already issued a verdict regarding holding polls within 90 days.
CJP Bandial further observed that the court would not sit idle on its verdict for the May 14 polls if negotiations between the political parties failed.
He also highlighted that the Constitution binds the court to make sure that its verdict was implemented. “The court’s responsibility is to uphold the law.”
Referring to unattributed statements alleging that courts did not respect the Constitution in the past, the CJP said that the court refrained from commenting on such statements as a “mark of respect”.
He maintained that decisions made in anger are often not the correct ones, adding: “Therefore, we do not get angry.”
The chief justice then asked PPP’s Naek to draw comparisons between discussions held in court and those that occur in the Parliament, noting the importance of the discussion. “See the level of discussion being held here,” he remarked.
Naek contended that the court must review the issue of holding polls within 90 days and insisted on the significance of caretaker governments in ensuring free and fair elections.
He further emphasised that no one would accept elections until the elected government was in place. At that, the CJP referred to the Feb 23 matter when the court had taken a suo motu notice. He stated that the government had not taken constitutional proceedings seriously.
“You remained preoccupied with the debate surrounding the four-three [verdict],” the CJP told the PPP counsel.
