Our ‘good to see you’ remark misinterpreted: CJP

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Umer Ata Bandial Wednesday asked the attorney general to tell his colleagues not to speak harshly at the apex court’s door, as they worked for Allah and that’s why they were sitting quietly.

The top judge passed these remarks while hearing the review petition filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan. A three-member bench of the apex court heard the review petition. Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Munib Akhtar were the other members of the bench headed by Justice Bandial.

At the outset of the hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan came to the rostrum to present his arguments. He complained that some of the court’s remarks a day earlier had left a wrong impression. “It was asked in the court yesterday why the Election Commission did not raise the points earlier,” he said, adding the bench had also remarked the federal government had previously been arguing that the decision to hold elections was a “minority verdict”.

In response to these issues, the attorney general said, “The point that the election of the National Assembly will be affected if there are elections in a province was raised earlier.” He added the point the federal government considered the 4/3 verdict a minority verdict was also raised beforehand.

Hearing these remarks, the chief justice said, “We were happy yesterday that legal points were presented before the court. You do not need to panic.” He assured the attorney general that the apex court would consider any reasonable point raised before taking a decision. “Legal points were raised earlier in the court but not discussed,” he said, adding that there was a discussion on the jurisdiction of review in the court yesterday. “The past will not be used against the government,” he said, stressing the court’s impartiality.

“You tell your colleagues not to speak so harshly at our door […] the largest House. We work for Allah, that’s why we are sitting quietly,” the CJP remarked.He then told the AGP to tell “whoever” had asked him to give a clarification that the court was sitting with a clean heart. “The statements given in other contexts were reported in a way that they gave a wrong impression,” he said, regretting that the court’s remarks were reported incorrectly.

Justice Bandial remarked it was reported that the court had given Imran Khan a Mercedes. “Mr, I don’t even use a Mercedes,” he said, adding that the PRO also told that the police arranged a bulletproof Mercedes for Khan but the matter was twisted into something else. “We have welcomed you and even said ‘good to see you’ but it was tainted with different colours,” he added.

Later, the court questioned as to why the Election Commission of Pakistan did not advise the president for holding simultaneous elections countrywide. The electoral watchdog had filed a review petition with the apex court against its April 14 order setting May 14 as the date for holding elections in Punjab.

Continuing his arguments Sajeel Shehryar Swati, the counsel for the Election Commission of Pakistan, submitted that the electoral watchdog had written a letter to President Arif Alvi on the order of the apex court. The chief justice, however, told the counsel that the ECP did not apprise the president about the situation which he was now telling the court. “Why you did not advise the president about holding the elections at one time across the country?” the CJP asked the ECP counsel adding that neither the president was informed about Article 218(3) of the Constitution nor were the elections held in 1970 mentioned. The CJP said the ECP did not inform the president about the security situation as well as of scarcity of funds. “But without discussing the ground realities, you are seeking more powers under Article 218(3)”, the CJP told the counsel. “If the Constitution gives powers then before using it, you should also keep your eyes and mind open,” the CJP further told the counsel.

Swati, however, contended that the apex court had exercised its powers relating to Articles 184(3) and 187 of the Constitution. Elaborating his point, he recalled that in houbara bustard case, the court had reviewed its decision. He further recalled that the apex court while dealing with the restoration of 16,000 employees’ cases had dismissed the review petition but used its powers of Articles 184(3) and 187 relating to its jurisdiction and execution of process. The counsel further submitted that even in the judges’ case, the court had changed its decision itself. At this, the chief justice told the ECP counsel that the review in the judges’ case was done through a suo motu notice.

Referring to the scope of review, the ECP counsel submitted that as the Supreme Court was the ultimate institution of justice, the scope of review could not be limited adding that no other court had the authority to dispense complete justice and use Article 190. The chief justice, however, asked the counsel whether 150 years of court precedents had become ineffective and whether there was a difference between the scope of review and appeal. “But you didn’t respond to this question the other day”, the CJP told the ECP counsel.

The counsel submitted that for the first time, the issue of announcing the date of elections had come to the court. The chief justice, however, reminded the counsel that the electoral watchdog had submitted to the court that it had the mandate for holding elections after getting proper security and funds. The chief justice said earlier, the 9-member bench had raised important questions in its order; however, at that time the interest of political parties was connected elsewhere.

After passing the judgment on elections, the government raised objections to the bench instead of raising the legal points,” the chief justice told the ECP. The chief justice further observed that on the order of the courts, a five-member bench was constituted from the original nine members. “How the government could claim 4-3 decision when a seven-member bench was never formed,” the chief justice questioned adding that if it had not been a matter of public interest, the case would have been decided in two minutes.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Munib Akhtar observed that if the counsel’s arguments about the jurisdiction of review and appeal were accepted, it would annul the Supreme Court rules. The judge observed that no amendments had so far been made to the jurisdiction of review in the SC rules adding that if jurisdiction was expanded, it will reopen cases dating back to several years. The ECP counsel contended that the time for filing a review should not be limited. Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed that the scope of the review was clearly mentioned in the Supreme Court rules. The chief justice observed that the use of Article 184(3) had increased a lot and they had realized that this could lead to mistakes. The chief justice told the ECP counsel that they will seek assistance from the attorney general on the point of the limit of review jurisdiction and its expansion. Later, the court adjourned the hearing for Thursday (today).