ISLAMABAD: Umar Ata Bandial, Chief Justice of Pakistan, made the observation on Tuesday that the opinions of two top court judges in the previous Supreme Court (SC) verdict regarding the elections in Punjab and KP are irrelevant in the case regarding the postponement of the elections for the Punjab Assembly. elections delay case
The case is being heard by a five-member bench that includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, and Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial.
After Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail called for reconsidering Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial’s “one-man show” powers, the CJP made the remarks.
A comprehensive dissenting note was issued by the two SC judges, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, regarding the chief justice’s suo motu notice of the Punjab and KP elections.
According to the dissenting opinion, the CJP has the authority to take sou motu notice and establish special benches, but doing so will attract criticism and damage public confidence in the Supreme Court.
The judges stated that they should reconsider the “one-man show” of the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s office’s power and regulate his authority.
In their dissenting opinions, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Jamal Khan Mandokhail said that the LHC should announce the verdict within three days and rejected the arguments regarding elections in Punjab and KP.
Today’s proceedings Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples Party, and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) submitted petitions to the Supreme Court to become respondents in the case prior to today’s hearing.
Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Usman Awan inquired about the maintainability of the PTI’s petition as proceedings began and mentioned the dissenting notes of two SC judges. Following the publication of the opinions of two judges, in which they rejected the suo motu verdict by a margin of 3 to 4,
CJP Bandial stated that the current case is entirely distinct at this point.
The “question in front of the court is simple one, can the ECP postpone the election date or not,” according to CJP Bandial.
The top judge made the observation, “We don’t want to stretch the matter,” and added, “If the ECP has the authority [to extend the date], then the matter will be over According to cjp Bandial, two judges’ opinions are not relevant in the elections delay case..”
“Assuming that the political temperature remains so high, issues will build,” CJP added.
Farooq H. Naek, a lawyer for the PPP, stated that the country currently possesses “anarchy and fascism.”
Justice Ijazul Ahsan questioned whether ECP had the authority to alter President Alvi’s election schedule.
“The fact is that does ECP has right to postpone decisions past 90 days,” Equity Ijazul Ahsan said.
At this, the CJP likewise second Equity Ijaz and asked might ECP at any point change the political decision date given by president?
Additionally, the AGP requested that the court form a full bench to oversee the case.
During the course of events,