Punjab Elections: SC Released Detailed Verdict
Punjab Elections: SC Released Detailed Verdict
Punjab Elections: SC Released Detailed Verdict
(Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL, CJ
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
versus
JUDGMENT
8. Publication of 18.04.2023
revised list of
candidates
withdrawal of
candidature and
Publication of
revised list of
candidates
20. The petition that was decided by the cited judgment did
not, as such, present a lis before the Court. Rather, the
petitioners sought declaratory reliefs in relation to various
aspects of the electoral process and the holding of elections,
with follow up relief by way of directions to be issued to the
Commission for framing rules, etc. This is clear from the prayer
clause of the petition, which is reproduced at pp. 698-700. It is
in this context that the observations made by the Court, and
sought to be relied upon, have to be understood. No doubt the
Court did refer to “powers” in relation to Article 218(3), as is
evident, e.g., from the opening sentence of para 39, which is as
follows (pg. 722; emphasis in original):
all but only giving an extended poll date it has certainly not
acted in terms of the second limb. That would have required
issuance of a “fresh Election Programme”, i.e., one complying
with the requirements of s. 57(2). That is patently not the case.
On any view of the matter therefore, ss. 57 and 58 neither did
(nor could) empower the Commission to extend the date of the
general election beyond the 90 day period nor did the impugned
order in any case even facially comply with the terms of those
provisions. Finally, s. 8(c) which was also relied upon in the
impugned order. It has no relevance as it clearly contemplates
an election already or about to be under way and applies
accordingly. In no manner can this provision be read as
allowing for the election to be abandoned altogether and the poll
date shifted forward in the manner sought to be done by the
impugned order.
fall within the four corners of the 2017 Act, in which case it
could be dealt with in terms of the first limb of s. 58 (subject to
the limitations noted above). But the question here is whether,
as the Commission purported to do (in the second last recital of
the impugned order), the election date could be taken beyond
the constitutional time period under cover of Article 254. That is
what the Commission has asserted. Article 254 provides as
follows:
Earlier Short Order and the short order in the present case,
when for the reasons stated, first the election date had to be
taken beyond the stipulated period, and then the election
program further shifted forward by about a fortnight.
31. The foregoing are the reasons for the short order whereby
this petition was disposed of.
Chief Justice
Judge
Judge
Islamabad, the
4th April, 2023
NAveed/*