ICT Local bodies polls, “This bill has not even been declared an act yet.” CJ IHC IHC has rejected the ECP petition, seeking suspension of the single bench order to hold the LG polls on Dec 31.

IHC bench headed by CJ Aamer Farooq admits Election Commission of Pakistan, federal govt’s appeals in Islamabad LG polls case

Justice Aamer Farooq says everyone has to do his work while remaining under the ambit of law

ISLAMABAD ( Web News )

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday admitted intra-court appeals filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the federal government against a ruling of its single-bench on local bodies polls in the federal capital.

A bench headed by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz has rejected the ECP petition, seeking suspension of the single bench order to hold the LG polls on Dec 31. During the DG Law ECP Mian Abdul Rauf Advocate, Advocate General Islamabad Barrister Jehangir Khan Jadoon and Additional Advocate General Munawar Iqbal Duggal appeared before the bench and present their arguments.

Last week, IHC Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir ordered the ECP to hold the election on time (Dec 31) while hearing petition of the PTI and JI against the election body’s verdict to delay the polls “for the time being” due to government’s decision to increase the number of union councils (UCs).

However, the ECP instead of holding the LG elections filed a petition against the order, presenting an excuse that there was a shortage of polling staff and government teachers and other staff are on winter vacation.

Beginning his arguments on Monday, ECP Advocate Mian Abdul Rauf said: “A bill was passed by the parliament,” referring to the bill proposing to increase the number of Union Councils (UCs) in the capital from 101 to 125, which was returned unsigned by the president on Sunday.

To this, Justice Farooq replied, “This bill has not even been declared an act yet.”. The IHC CJ asked if the bill had been passed before the ECP decided to hold elections.

The CJ further said: “The question is that elections could not be delayed because of a single bill,” adding that the bill had not been turned into law yet.

Rauf responded that the bill had been passed by both houses, referring to the National Assembly and the Senate.

He mentioned that there were “possibilities [of the question] that under which law would the mayor and the deputy mayor be elected”.

Meanwhile, the additional AG said, “The notification issued on December 19 has not been challenged, not even in this petition.”

Maintaining otherwise, Justice Farooq responded that the said notification had been challenged. The IHC CJ pointed out that none of the parties was addressing the actual constitutional matters raised in the matter.

“You both [parties] are disadvantaging yourselves [as you] did not bring a single thing in front of the court.”

Justice Farooq said the hearing could be held some other day after the parties prepared their arguments.

The ECP’s lawyer argued that the single bench had not taken the high court’s decision into consideration upon which the court inquired what had happened when the matter was sent to the electoral watchdog.

The lawyer informed the court that the ECP had ordered the postponement of local body elections in the federal capital on December 27 and that the verdict issued by the election regulatory body on December 28 was not challenged adding that “the verdict was final”.

The ECP’s director general of law also informed the court that on December 28 the election regulatory body had decided to delay the polls and that the order had been based on the December 27 order.

“The reasons cited by the ECP were not even considered by the single bench,” the lawyer argued.

The additional attorney general (AAG) informed the court that “there are some facts that were not taken into consideration by the single bench”.

The court inquired if the ECP could be “ordered” and “what would have happened if the court had simply declared the ECP’s decision illegal”.

“The ECP is free to take decisions independently,” the DG Law stated.

Upon the CJ’s questioning, the DG Law also informed the court that if elections are delayed for any reason, a new date needs to be announced by the ECP and that fresh elections can be called within 120 days if the number of union councils is increased.

During the hearing Justice Aamer Farooq remarked that high court could not issue directions to Election Commission of Pakistan, adding that this principle has been settled in PTI foreign funding case. Justice Aamer Farooq said that with excuse for which the purpose matter was sent to the ECP, it went for the bill, adding that everyone has to do his work while remaining under the ambit of law, adding that we are considering the matter whether directions could be issued to the constitutional body.

Meanwhile the counsel of the ECP requested the court to set aside the order of the single member bench of IHC. The court after hearing the arguments reserved the judgment and later on announced the verdict.

The court has admitted the petitions of ECP and federal government for hearing and issued notices to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Jamaat-e-Islami in the case and sought their replies till January 9.

Talking to media outside the high court, PML-N Islamabad President Dr. Tariq Fazal Chadhry said they would accept the every decision of the IHC. He maintained that the decision to extend the UCs was taken to ensure the participation of every citizen in the electoral process.