Reserved seats: ECP files 3 more pleas on how to deal with SC verdict, new elections law

ISLAMABAD: In a fix over how to proceed on the Supreme Court (SC) detailed order on reserved seats after the recent amendments to the Elections Act, 2017, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has filed three pleas before the apex court.

It was learnt that besides civil miscellaneous petition, the ECP also filed two other petitions for review concerning the ‘clarification order’ and seeking stay with regard to the order’s implementation till the pleas were decided.

Through the petitions, the commission sought guidance of the SC with respect to the effect of the Elections (Second) Amendment Act, 2024 on the short order of the apex court of July 12, clarification order (majority) dated Sept 14 and detailed judgment dated Sept 23 in the interest of justice. The electoral body filed a CMA in the apex court in terms of para 10 of the order dated July 12, 2024 (majority) seeking guidance on legal issues.

The commission filed the CMA in view of the promulgation of the Elections (Second) Amendment Act, 2024 on account of the fact that at the time when the commission preferred the CMA for seeking clarification, the said amendment had not been made; however, at the time of the disposal of the same order dated July 12, 2024, the said amendment and currently existing as the law of the land and had been accorded a retrospective effect, thereby, the court order dated July 12, 2024 based on the law prior to the amendment enactment, stood altered.

“In the peculiar circumstances, the commission finds itself in a precarious situation in as much as of it discharges the obligation forthwith, as per the order dated July 12, 2024, then it nullifies the law enacted by the parliament and vice-versa,” says the ECP CMA.

The ECP submitted that the National Assembly speaker, under his signatures vide letter dated Sept 19, 2024 had referred to the Elections (Second) Amendment Act, 2024. It asserted that the apex court order, issued on July 12, 2024 was based on the law prior to the amendment’s enactment, which had been altered. Therefore, the effect of the same stands nullified by an Act of the Parliament and, underlying the principles of parliamentary supremacy, has required the petitioner to act upon the existing law, a position affirmed by speakers of Punjab and Sindh assemblies. The provincial assemblies called upon the ECP to implement the law, i.e. Elections (Second Amendment Act, 2024). In contrast, a letter written by Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Assembly speaker, called upon the ECP to implement the SC majority verdict.

The ECP submitted that it implemented the directives of the Supreme Court issued vide short order dated July 12, 2024 (majority) by notifying the 39 candidates as set out in the said order on July 24, 2024 (without prejudice to the review petitions No. 331 and 332 of 2024). However, it submitted the CMA No. 7540 of 2024 to seek clarification, in view of permission accorded vide paragraph No10 of the short order (majority), on the point that in the absence of a valid organisational structure of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, who will confirm the political affiliation of the returned candidates (MNAs and MPAs) on behalf of the PTI, who have filed their statements in light of the Supreme Court Order (majority) dated July 12, 2024.

“The commission has the utmost respect and reverence for the directives of this court and cannot fathom to refuse compliance, thereof,” says the CMA, adding that the intent of the commission is vivid from its conduct in complying with the directives of this court without any demur; however, it was on account of a legitimate point of concern that the petitioner had availed the option of reaching out to this court in order to seek clarification, as had been left open.

It was further submitted that the commission, being a constitutional body, has always governed its affairs in accordance with the law of the land and in due compliance with the Constitution.

“It was with this intent that the commission had approached the court to seek a clarification, as the detailed judgment had not yet been released at the time, which is now in field, as of Sept 23, 2024,” added the CMA.

After several days’ deliberations on the ‘clarification order’ and recent detailed order, the ECP also issued a brief statement about the decisions, which were taken. The Election Commission, the statement notes, had been deliberating on the situation after the detailed order of the Supreme Court on the reserved seats case and the amendment of the Elections Act by the Parliament for the past few days, as a result of which the following steps have been taken.

The statement said that a review petition has been filed on some points in the ‘explanatory order’ of the Supreme Court. It was also said that since the detailed order has been issued, more points have been added to the already filed review petition.

The statement said that a civil miscellaneous application (CMA) has been filed in the Supreme Court on what the Election Commission has to follow in the light of the Supreme Court order and the amended law, passed by the parliament later.

Recently, the Elections Act Amendment Bill was passed by a majority vote in the parliament, according to the amendment, a candidate who did not submit the party certificate before obtaining the election symbol would be considered independent. In case of not submitting the list of reserved seats within the prescribed time period, no political party would be entitled to be allotted reserved seats.

Similarly, the amendment bill said that any candidate’s declaration of affiliation to a political party once in the prescribed period would be irrevocable.

Meanwhile, Adviser to the Chief Minister on Information Barrister Muhammad Ali Saif accused the chief election commissioner (CEC) of turning the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) into a political entity. In a statement issued on Thursday, he alleged that the ECP was now operating under the influence of an “illegitimate” government. He said the ECP had been convening unnecessary meetings to delay implementation of the Supreme Court order on the reserved seats.

The adviser stressed that the commission should stop creating distractions and immediately issue the notification for reserved seats as per the court’s ruling. “The CEC’s actions amount to a contempt of court,” Barrister Saif said, alleging that the CEC had also violated Article 6 of the Constitution by making decisions that, according to him, contradicted the law.