ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) until the next date of hearing suspended the Lahore High Court’s judgment and notification for the appointment of Election Tribunals in the Punjab for the trial of election petitions.

A five-member larger bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, on Thursday, heard an appeal of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) against the LHC’s order regarding the appointment of election tribunals.

The SC has been asked to decide who has the power to appoint the Election Tribunal, whether the chief justice of the High Court or the Commission has primacy in Tribunals’ appointment.

The bench declared that the ECP’s correspondence for meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice LHC regarding the instant matter will be deemed “to have not been acted upon.”

It said: “We are confident that the meeting between CJ LHC and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) on Election Tribunals appointment will immediately take place thereafter the notification of Justice Aalia Neelum as chief justice of Lahore High Court.”

The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on July 2, 24 unanimously nominated a judge (Justice Aalia Neelum) for the position of Chief Justice LHC,

but her confirmation is before the Parliamentary Committee on Judges Appointment.

The chief justice expected that the matter (of confirmation) would finalized soon, and thereafter the said meeting could take place between the CEC and the CJ LHC.

At the onset of the proceeding, Niazullah Niazi, lawyer of PTI leader Shaukat Riaz Basra and others, came to the rostrum and stated they have objection on the bench, adding; “My clients want CJP Faez not to hear this case.”

The chief justice reacting to Niazi’s objections, said; “enough is enough! Stop scandalizing the courts.” He said that Niazi in the last hearing had moved an application to implead as party, adding he (Niazi) was permitted to become party. The CJP said that he shall refer his case to the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) for the suspension of practicing licence.

“The scandalizing of the Chief Justice of Pakistan must stop. There is perpetual scandalizing of the Court. You (Niazi) moved an application for impleadment, which they had granted.” He said Salman Akram, who is a petitioner before the LHC and has also approached this Court did not raise this objection. He further said that even the PTI leader (Imran Khan) when appeared before the apex court, in another case, through video-link, did not object on him.

The chief justice warned that if any paper wanted such kind of headlines, then it would not be permitted, and the lawyer’s case would be sent to the PBC for action. He said there is democracy in the country and now we have in the Supreme Court. Now, instead of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the Committee, constituted under Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, forms the benches and fixes the cases.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel stated that they (the judges) are not sitting for the likeness and dislikeness of the litigants. He said if the decision is in favour of any party then he likes it, but if it goes against them then they start raising objections.

The chief justice said that Niazullah Niazi is acting holier than Pope and they have noted his conduct.

Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, representing the ECP, argued that the Commission on 14-02-24 wrote to the Registrar LHC for the appointment of the Election Tribunals, and pursuant to that two judges were provided for the appointment of Tribunals, and thereafter the Commission issued requisite notification and allocated their respective territorial jurisdiction.

He submitted as the two Tribunals were not sufficient therefore, the ECP again approached the LHC and sought names and two more judges were appointed as Election Tribunals in the Punjab. However, when more names were sought for Tribunals, the chief justice LHC unilaterally appointed four Tribunals and allocated their territorial jurisdiction.

Sikandar further informed that in the meanwhile, advocate Salam Akram Raja, who had contested the elections, but is aggrieved of result, filed a writ petition before the LHC. A single judge bench of the LHC on 29-05-24 decided the matter without any manner adverting to the case.

The chief justice inquired from Sikandar whether CEC had held a meeting with the CJ LHC. He replied that no meeting took place, adding that there was correspondence between the ECP and the LHC on the issue.

The bench noted that if face to face meaningful consultation takes place between the ECP, which is a constitutional body, and the LHC office holder then this matter could be resolved amicably.

The case is adjourned for an indefinite period.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024