ISLAMABAD: On Monday, the Supreme Court recommended caution in cases where a constitutional body or constitutional office-holder was involved in a dispute, emphasizing that adjudication in such matters should be the last resort. It did this by setting aside the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) order and the subsequent notification regarding election tribunals to hear complaints related to polls.
“The people that we all work for in the end expect nothing less,” Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa said. He was heading a five-judge SC panel hearing an appeal by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) seeking a definitive ruling on whether the commission or the LHC held primacy in the appointment of election tribunals.
The Supreme Court was presented with an appeal that attempted to reverse the ruling made by the LHC, which was handled by senior attorney Sikandar Bashir Mohmand.
During the most recent hearing on September 24, the supreme court was informed that four of Punjab’s eight electoral tribunals were now operational and could resolve election-related disputes; the remaining tribunals will receive notification from the ECP. However, the ruling invalidated both the LHC rule and the notification that followed on June 12, 2024, designating the tribunals.
The ruling stated that since the matter had been peacefully resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, no further adjudication was required following the meeting between the ECP and Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Aalia Neelum.
Furthermore, the court noted that nothing mentioned in the contested LHC judgment should be brought up in court because such a dispute could eventually need to be decided.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail maintained in his supplementary note that the LHC judges held constitutional positions and that the ECP was a constitutional organization. “Members of both institutions are expected to treat one another with respect and to engage in meaningful consultation when there is a disagreement.”
Due to the two institutions’ failure to meet, appropriate consultation was lacking in the current case, which led to lawsuit. Consensus emerged when the high court CJ and the ECP agreed to hold serious consultations while these appeals were pending.
Judge Mandokhail noted that there was no provision in the Elections Act 2017 or the Constitution that would allow the commission to ask for a panel of judges to be appointed as tribunals. The legislature’s objective is clear from the fact that it did not provide the commission the authority to request a panel of judges and select a judge of its own choosing from that group.
Justice Mandokhail noted that the commission needs to have faith in each judge and that it may only ask a judge to rule against each tribunal, adding that the high court CJ’s final conclusion is ultimately authoritative.
Although the ECP alone has the authority to name tribunals, Justice Mandokhail noted that an independent apparatus is required to guarantee a free and fair election.
Justice Mandokhail stated that the judiciary has been given the authority to decide on such important matters and that the commission’s prior contact with the Chief Justice of the high court in question was a prerequisite for selecting a serving judge.
The CJ is not only the administrative leader of the high court, but he or she is also in the best position to know and evaluate the availability and suitability of the judges, which is why consultations are being held.
