Govt won't accept SC's hasty decision in election delay case: law minister

In the wake of Supreme Court's announcement to issue verdict in the election delay case, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said the government will not accept if the top court makes a hasty decision on such a sensitive and important issue.

“We will not accept if a decision is made in haste on such a sensitive and important issue. We have tried our best to maintain the institution’s sanctity,” the minister said while addressing National Assembly session on Monday.

The country's top court is hearing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf's (PTI) plea against the Election Commission of Pakistan concerning postponement of polls in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Tarar, while speaking about the apex court, said it is the same institution which gave nine years, instead of three months, to a dictator.

He spoke about the Attorney General of Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan asked for the formation of a six-member bench with judges who weren’t present in the bench before.

“Now we hear the news that the verdict has been reserved," the law minister said.

Earlier today, while directing the Attorney General of Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan, Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial — who was heading the three-judge bench comprising Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan — said that the government and PTI should find a solution through political dialogue.

“Have a political dialogue for the Pakistani nation’s sake. Reach a political conclusion,” the chief justice said.

The verdict has been reserved and will be announced tomorrow despite the government seeking the formation of a new bench to hear the case.

Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) President Maulana Fazlur Rehman, last week, said that the ruling alliance has no trust in the apex court's three-judge bench and said that the bloc has decided its boycott.

Sharing his views on the matter during the parliament’s session, Tarar said that a long consultation was held among the ruling coalition on the Supreme Court hearing. He added that the government had submitted a request to become a party in the case for the last six days.

“It demanded transparency to be brought to the Supreme Court’s proceedings. When representatives of political parties appeared in the court today, they expressed displeasure,” the minister said.

The apex court’s order exists, but it was suspended through an executive order, the minister said. “There is immense apprehension within legal circles regarding the issue.”

Tarar mentioned that despite expressing no confidence, the bench took matters forward. “Our request was to make a bench that is acceptable to all. The decision of four judges against three has come out.”

He added that the government’s lawyers said that their objections should be heard before the hearing and that the government is not being made a party despite continuous requests. “We were party earlier, but it is not known when we were refused to be one,” he said.

Commenting on the differences between the judiciary, Senator Tarar added that voices are also being raised within the institution, but they are being ignored.

The law minister, who represents Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) in the parliament, said that institutions earn their respect through their conduct.

“Voices of the institution’s judges are rising, but they are being suppressed. If the decision is made in a hurry, then history will write it on black pages. If such an important national issue is decided in haste, then it will be controversial,” Tarar maintained.

The PML-N politician mentioned that the chief justice asked political parties to resolve the issue on their own. “I would ask the chief justice to first fix your own house. First look at your own house and listen to the voices rising inside it.”

The minister made these remarks in relation to the order made by a special SC bench, with a two-to-one majority, regarding the suspension of all suo motu cases — under Article 184(3) of the Constitution — until amendments are made to the Supreme Court Rules governing the chief justice's discretionary powers.

The special bench order came on the suo motu case related to examining the grant of 20 additional marks to a Hafiz-e-Quran student while admitting them for an MBBS/BDS degree.

CJP Bandial had formed the three-member special bench to hear the case, but Justice Isa objected to the constitution of the bench.

But later, the Supreme Court's registrar, in a circular, “disregarded” the judgment authored by Justice Isa. The senior puisne judge then demanded the removal of the top court's registrar.