The Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a divided opinion on the announcement of election dates in Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, causing controversy and revealing a deep rift between the judges. The court’s decision is ambiguous for a number of reasons, including the fact that the judges themselves created the ambiguity through their order, rather than the parties involved in the proceedings.
Former president of the Sindh High Court Bar Association Salahuddin Ahmed made the comment that he was unsure of the ruling’s outcome and whether it was 3-2 or 3-4 in favour of one party or the other. He made it clear that the Supreme Court had fallen short and that the judges should give this serious thought.
Senior attorneys have questioned the motive behind the suo motu proceedings in this case, wondering if they were intended to change the judiciary’s power dynamics or uphold the Constitution by ensuring elections.
The matter was still pending in the high courts, but one group of Supreme Court justices suggested using the court’s suo motu jurisdiction to resolve it, while another group objected. Judges are interrogating one another about their conduct, and the institution’s leadership has been urged to maintain control of the situation.
The order was issued by Pakistan’s Chief Justice, Umar Ata Bandial, with Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail voting against it 3:2. The judges who dissented, however, did not specify why they did so, instead writing that they did so “for reasons to be recorded later.”
The Supreme Court’s order lacks clarity, and it is expected that the Election Commission of Pakistan or other aggrieved parties may approach the court to seek clarification.
There shouldn’t be any legal ambiguity, according to legal expert Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar, as the current judgement was rendered by a majority of the newly assembled five-member bench in accordance with Article 184(3) of the Constitution. After the nine-member bench’s first hearing, four judges had previously announced their disassociation, and two of them had expressed their opinions in writing.
According to the Constitution and Supreme Court Rules of 1980, which cannot be challenged, the Chief Justice has the authority to fix cases and assemble the bench, according to Khokhar. Another attorney added that the bench was reconstituted because the two judges who had dismissed petitions on February 23 had “functus officio” status.
Due to the lack of clarity in the Supreme Court’s decision, it is likely that a second round of litigation will be necessary in the near future.
