The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday accepted the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) appeal and upheld its suspension of the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) June 12 verdict in the Punjab election tribunals matter.
The court’s reserved verdict was released today on an ECP appeal seeking a final determination on whether the commission or the LHC held primacy in the appointment of election tribunals.
The appeal had requested the SC to overturn the LHC ruling that under Article 219(c), read with Article 222(b) of the Constitution, the high court chief justice has pre-eminence or dominance in matters of appointment of election tribunals under Section 140 of the Elections Act 2017.
At the hearing on July 4, the apex court had suspended the LHC’s June 12 notification for constituting eight different election tribunals in Punjab, as well as the high court’s determination that its chief justice has the final say in the appointment of tribunals to settle election disputes.
The apex court had also directed that a meaningful consultation be held between LHC Chief Justice Aalia Neelum and Chief Election Commissioner Sikandar Sultan Raja for the formation of tribunals.
While issuing the order, Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa had expressed confidence that the ECP would act reasonably during the meeting, conducting itself in a manner that inspired confidence.
The court had reserved its verdict on September 24.
The order released today said the bench was informed by the ECP’s counsel that the meeting between the LHC top judge and ECP chief had taken place and the matter was “amicably resolved” with a sufficient number of election
tribunals set to be appointed/constituted immediately.
“Since the matter has been amicably resolved there is no need to
decide these cases,” the apex court’s verdict said, saying it appreciated the two officials for resolving the matter.
“Undoubtedly, they realised their respective constitutional and legal responsibilities and rose to the occasion to do the needful.”
The court said that the June 12 verdict was set aside thusly, adding that it should not be referred to before in any court should such a dispute occur again.
