By Qamar Bashir
On the 15th of December 2023, the judiciary faced an immense challenge: safeguarding the impending elections scheduled for the 8th of February. The judiciary successfully averted attempts to sabotage, excessively delay, or even
indefinitely postpone the elections. Such actions could have derailed democracy, leading to the imposition of an alternative system, the form and structure of which would have been uncertain and potentially detrimental to the nation's democratic process and stability. The impact of such disruptions could have been monumental,
causing severe repercussions for the country's governance, rule of law, and the citizens’ rights to participate in a fair electoral process.
The Supreme Court in the last two consecutive days asserted its authority and
independence like never seen before. Day before yesterday (14.12.2023) it issued
notices to the two spymasters to defend the charges of manipulating the election
2018, manipulating the superior judiciary to constitute benches of the judges
cultivated by them, pressurizing the judiciary to keep the Nawaz Sharif and
Maryam Nawaz in Jail until the conduct the election 2018 and visiting the judges
of the superior judiciary in private to pressurize them the give the decision in the
impending political and administration case the way ISI wanted. please refine
The Supreme Court displayed unwavering determination to prevent any attempt to
disrupt the upcoming elections. The court's extraordinary commitment was evident
as it convened late into the evening, forming a three-member bench with available
members, bypassing the usual protocol of bench constitution outlined in the
Supreme Court Practices and Procedure Act. Despite the absence of the primary
petitioner, PTI, the court proceeded with the session and announced its decision
while still in session, led by the Chief Justice. At one point, when a lady lawyer
interrupted the Chief Justice during the order dictation, the court responded sternly,
rebuking the lawyer and instructing her to sit at the rear benches while maintaining
silence. This resolute stance highlighted the court's uncompromising dedication to
ensure the integrity and timeliness of the electoral process.
The Supreme Court, despite being in a live session, openly expressed its discontent
with the Chief Justice of the Lahore court. The single-bench order suspending the
training of Returning Officers (ROs) and District Returning Officers (DROs) was
critiqued by the Supreme Court, as it provided grounds for the Election
Commission to delay announcing the election schedule. During the proceedings,
the three-member bench was primarily supported by the Election Commission's
lawyer and the Attorney General, with no representation to defend the initial
petition filed in the Lahore High Court. The Election Commission's lawyer sought
to challenge the Lahore high court's order which had suspended the Election
Commission's notification regarding the training of DRs and DROs.
When questioned by the Chief Justice, the Election Commission clarified that it
hadn't issued the Election Schedule yet, intending to do so after the training
sessions concluded. However, this response triggered the Chief Justice's ire
directed toward the Election Commission. He vehemently criticized the
Commission for attempting to leverage the Lahore High Court’s order to postpone
the announcement of the election schedule. The Chief Justice firmly asserted that
the training and the schedule announcement were distinct matters and held no
direct correlation, deeming the Election Commission's attempt to link them as a
malicious tactic to delay the electoral timeline.
Despite attempts by the lawyers and the Election Commission’s representative to
defend their position, they couldn't substantiate any constitutional or lawful basis
linking the announcement of the Election Schedule with the training of the ROS.
When questioned repeatedly by the Chief Justice about the schedule's
announcement, their response of "soon" didn't satisfy the Court. Frustrated by the
lack of a clear response, the Chief Justice sharply rebuked them, affirming that the
election schedule must be issued that day, despite having only three hours left until
midnight.
The Chief Justice made a resolute statement to the nation, affirming that while the
Supreme Court won't micromanage institutions, it remains committed to ensuring
their proper functioning. He stressed that any attempts, regardless of their size or
influential backing, to delay or postpone the elections will not be tolerated. Such
actions would be deemed contempt of the Supreme Court and face severe
consequences.
The Court's steadfast and decisive stance in safeguarding the constitution, the law,
and democracy itself has quelled numerous narratives seeking to postpone or
indefinitely delay the elections. These narratives, propagated in the media and
public spheres, aimed to disrupt the constitution, disregard the law, and harm
democratic institutions. The Supreme Court's principled stand has curbed these
attempts to protect the integrity of the nation's democratic process.
The narrative to extend the interim government until economic revival, improved
security, and counter-terrorism measures were achieved lacked constitutional
backing. Implementing this narrative without an elected government's legitimacy
could have severely damaged the nation's democratic principles and international
standing. It might have triggered economic collapse, jeopardized global financial
operations, and led to severe currency devaluation. This move could have eroded
trust in democratic processes, limited citizens' rights, and disrupted governance by
subverting the electoral mandate essential for accountable decision-making. Such
instability might trigger social unrest and portray a power grab rather than national
interest, sparking protests or civil disobedience.
Internationally, postponed elections might tarnish a country's democratic image,
straining diplomatic ties and aid packages.
Delaying due to terrorism threats risks compromising democratic values and
empowering extremist groups, undermining citizens' rights and democratic
principles. The solution lies in reinforcing security measures to ensure safe
elections, rather than postponing them. Upholding the election schedule despite
security challenges showcases resilience against terrorism, safeguarding citizens'
rights and democratic foundations.
Delaying elections due to bad weather, despite being advocated by certain groups,
lacks constitutional standing and is an unsubstantiated pretext. Around the world,
election authorities implement contingency plans to ensure smooth elections, even
in adverse conditions. Such delays may compromise fairness and representation in
affected regions, undermining democratic principles. Balancing concerns about
voter turnout with ensuring equal opportunities for all citizens in the electoral
process is crucial. Such precedents could pave the way for future challenges to
delay elections, potentially eroding democratic values. Countries facing harsher
weather conditions employ alternative measures like transportation assistance,
extended voting hours, or temporary polling stations to facilitate voting.
The resolute stance taken by the Supreme Court to ensure the elections proceed on
schedule stands as a beacon of hope for upholding democratic principles and
constitutional sanctity. The court's unwavering commitment to safeguarding the
electoral process against any disruption, whether through frivolous petitions or
attempts to delay on flimsy pretexts, underscores the paramount importance of
timely and fair elections.
The dismissal of baseless narratives seeking to derail the electoral process,
including the Lahore High Court's actions, signals a clear message: any attempt to
impede the electoral schedule will be met with the severest consequences under the
law.
Upholding the sanctity of elections not only reinforces the democratic fabric but
also reinforces the citizens' right to choose their representatives, ensuring the
peaceful transfer of power and preserving the nation's integrity. The Supreme
Court's firm stand in this critical juncture resonates as a testament to the resilience
of democratic values and the unwavering commitment to uphold the rule of law
above all else.
