Islamabad: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial stated on Friday that if negotiations between the government and the PTI fall through, the Supreme Court would not “sit idle” on its directive to hold elections in Punjab on May 14.
The federal coalition and the opposition had been in talks for three days to settle on a specific date for national elections when he made these remarks as the top court started hearing a petition regarding one-day elections. Following the conclusion of the talks on Tuesday, the PTI gave the court a report stating that no agreement had been reached and requesting that it enforce its April 4 ruling regarding elections in Punjab.
The three-member Supreme Court bench, made up of CJP Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Munib Akhtar, made it clear to the negotiating parties during the most recent hearing that its April 4 order regarding the Punjab Assembly elections had not changed. In a statement released today, the chief justice acknowledged that the government and PTI could resume talks “if both parties were interested,” but also expressed disappointment in their “lack of interest” in having a meaningful conversation. He added that the SC’s duty was to uphold the law and the Constitution and that the court only needed to determine whether both sides could agree on an election date.
After conducting a hearing that lasted nearly two hours, the proceeding was adjourned, with the CJP saying that an appropriate order will be issued.
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, PPP lawyer Farooq H. Naek, PTI leader Shah Mahmood Qureshi, PML-N’s Khawaja Saad Rafique and others were present as the proceeding commenced today.
At the outset of the hearing, the PPP counsel read out loud the coalition government’s report on talks with the opposition — which was submitted earlier today — in court. In its reply, the government stated that a “major breakthrough” was achieved during the dialogue.
The CJP noted that the response had been signed by the finance minister, emphasising the importance of political leadership in resolving political issues. Additionally, he pressed on the significance of ongoing discussions with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
“The matter in court is constitutional, not political,” the top judge remarked, stressing that the SC had left political matters to political parties.
He then asked why the approval of the IMF agreement and trade policy were important, to which Naek replied: “Getting the IMF loan is key for the budget.”
The PPP lawyer explained that without the assemblies it would be impossible to approve the budget. “We wouldn’t be in this crisis if the assemblies of Punjab and KP were not dissolved.”
“Because of this crisis, a lot of the court’s time is also being wasted,” he said, adding that the issue at hand would be resolved if an understanding was reached between the government and the opposition.
“Will the IMF loan be used for reserves or the repayment of debts?” Justice Bandial asked here, to which Naek responded that the answer to this question could only be given by the finance minister.
The CJP also inquired if the budget was formulated under the guidelines of the IMF package, referring to news reports that stated the tranche would only be sanctioned if friendly countries provide a loan to Pakistan.
He stressed that the Constitution mandated holding polls within 90 days of the dissolution of assemblies, emphasising that the court had already issued a verdict regarding holding polls within 90 days.
CJP Bandial further observed that the court would not sit idle on its verdict for the May 14 polls if negotiations between the political parties failed.
He also highlighted that the Constitution binds the court to implement its verdict. “The court’s responsibility is to uphold the law.”
Referring to unattributed statements alleging that courts did not respect the Constitution in the past, the CJP said that the court refrained from commenting on such statements as a “mark of respect”.
He maintained that decisions made in anger are often not the correct ones, adding: “Therefore, we do not get angry.”
The chief justice then asked PPP’s Naek to draw comparisons between discussions held in court and those that occur in the Parliament, noting the importance of the discussion. “See the level of discussion being held here,” he remarked.
Naek contended that the court must review the issue of holding polls within 90 days and insisted on the significance of caretaker governments in ensuring free and fair elections.
He further emphasised that no one would accept elections until the elected government was in place. At that, the CJP referred to the Feb 23 matter when the court had taken a suo motu notice. He stated that the government had not taken constitutional proceedings seriously.
“You remained preoccupied with the debate surrounding the four-three [verdict],” the CJP told the PPP counsel.
The top judge said Justice Athar Minallah had raised the point of the dissolution of assemblies, however, the government showed no interest. “Even in a discussion today, no one is talking about the law or the Constitution.”
He noted that the seriousness of the government was such that it had not filed a review appeal — on the SC’s verdict. “The government doesn’t want to talk about law but wants to do politics.”
Justice Bandial stated that the court won’t respond to politics, saying that he had taken the oath to protect the Constitution.
“Along with economic, political, societal and security, there is also a constitutional crisis [in the country],” he said. “Eight people embraced martyrdom yesterday.
“The government and the opposition will have to become serious,” he observed. “Leave the matter on the political parties … should the court not ensure implementation of the law? Should we turn a blind eye to the public’s interest?
“The government is bound to follow the court’s orders,” Justice Bandial maintained. “The court is showing restraint but this should not be considered as our weakness.”
CJP also said that the court won’t shy away from sacrifices for ensuring the implementation of the law. “The nation’s jawan has given sacrifices and we are ready to do the same.”
At that, Barrister Ali Zafar stated that the PTI had agreed on holding elections across the country on the same day, but the only condition was that assemblies should be dissolved by May 14. “Our second condition is that polls should be held by the second week of July.”
The third condition, the lawyer went on, was that the delay in elections should be legalised through a constitutional amendment. Barrister Zafar also highlighted that May 14 was only a few days away but polls funds had not been released yet.
“Due to the doctrine of necessity, the election cannot be delayed any further,” he added.
Subsequently, PML-N’s Khawaja Saad Rafique came to the rostrum.
The railway minister said he was not a lawyer and was not aware of the etiquette of speaking in court. “But I will speak the truth, nothing but the truth.”
Rafique said there was deep mistrust between institutions and political parties.
The PML-N leader expressed his dissatisfaction with the judiciary, claiming that it had been “unfair to us since 2017”. However, he clarified that his party did not seek conflict among institutions, especially when the basic needs of the people remain unmet.
He also emphasised the importance of transparency in the 90-day demand, as mandated by the Constitution. He warned that in the past, the country had faced disintegration due to the failure to accept election results, pointing out the need for fair and democratic processes.
The minister called for simultaneous elections across the country, warning of impending destruction if elections are held in just one province.
Rafique also informed the court that the assemblies in Sindh and Balochistan were very sensitive, making it difficult to dissolve both assemblies prematurely just for Punjab. He called it an arduous task.
The minister expressed gratitude towards the PTI for engaging in talks “with an open heart” and recommended that the talks should continue.
He further explained that complications arise when the court is dragged into political affairs, to which the CJP replied that the judiciary was sitting with hands tied because the circumstances were not conducive.
The judge pointed out that elections had taken place even during times of major wars. “Elections took place even during the earthquake in Turkey.”
“It seems from your words that you do not want to violate the Constitution,” he told Rafique.
Justice Bandial noted that the remarks made about Punjab were political in nature, but they were not presented in writing to the court. “Only the matters of funds and security were discussed in front of the court.”
He expressed that at the very least, the funds for the elections could have been released and advised that actions must be taken to demonstrate good governance.
The chief justice stated that the court was given a briefing on security and then asked if there was any guarantee that the security situation would improve by October 8. He said that only assumptions were being made regarding the date of the election.
Presenting his arguments, PTI’s Qureshi said that the government — in its report — did not say anything new and had instead repeated its previous stance.
“We have tried our best to make the negotiations fruitful,” he said. “But the government benches said things that were equivalent to violating the court’s orders.”
Qureshi stated that the PTI report submitted in court yesterday included the signatures of all the members of its negotiation team, while the government’s response only included Ishaq Dar’s signatures.
At that, the CJP said that the government’s report was submitted early morning today but the court still conducted a hearing on it.
“The government and the PTI have no interest in holding talks,” Justice Bandial remarked. “The court only has to see if both the sides have agreed on a date [for polls].”
He then asked if a decision could be reached within two to three days.
Meanwhile, Qureshi contended that the coalition had sought more time saying that it comprised of 12 parties. “But, Imran Khan and everyone else criticised why a gap of three days was given,” he revealed.
Qureshi went on to say that there was also no progress on the IMF deal. However, the CJP stated here that the matter should not be discussed in court.
The country, the PTI leader continued, was being pushed towards constitutional crisis and called on the court to look into his party’s stance.
“We have read your stance,” the chief justice replied, adding that proceedings could continue in the case regarding holding elections in Punjab on May 14. He also said that the PTI-government negotiations could again be held if both parties were interested.
Here, Qureshi argued that the government was not showing any flexibility, recalling that the PTI had “sacrificed” its governments in Punjab and KP. “There is always an environment for negotiations,” he continued, claiming that the government was just trying to waste time.
Subsequently, CJP Bandial said that the court would issue an appropriate order, adding that the political parties could continue with the negotiations if they were interested.
The hearing was then adjourned.
