AGL40.01▼ -0.01 (0.00%)AIRLINK187.98▲ 9.91 (0.06%)BOP10.12▲ 0.16 (0.02%)CNERGY7.11▲ 0.17 (0.02%)DCL10.15▲ 0.06 (0.01%)DFML41.57▲ 0 (0.00%)DGKC107.91▲ 1.02 (0.01%)FCCL39▼ -0.03 (0.00%)FFBL82.02▲ 0.13 (0.00%)FFL14.9▲ 1.2 (0.09%)HUBC119.46▲ 0.21 (0.00%)HUMNL14.05▲ 0.05 (0.00%)KEL6.4▲ 0.49 (0.08%)KOSM8.07▲ 0.01 (0.00%)MLCF49.47▲ 1.37 (0.03%)NBP73.66▲ 0.83 (0.01%)OGDC204.85▲ 11.09 (0.06%)PAEL33.56▲ 1.41 (0.04%)PIBTL8.07▲ 0.05 (0.01%)PPL185.41▲ 11.34 (0.07%)PRL33.61▲ 1.01 (0.03%)PTC27.39▲ 2.12 (0.08%)SEARL119.82▼ -5.14 (-0.04%)TELE9.69▲ 0.27 (0.03%)TOMCL35.3▼ -0.09 (0.00%)TPLP12.25▲ 0.63 (0.05%)TREET20.26▲ 1.84 (0.10%)TRG60.78▲ 0.29 (0.00%)UNITY37.99▼ -0.22 (-0.01%)WTL1.65▼ -0.01 (-0.01%)

ECP failed to ‘appreciate constitutional authority’ in Punjab polls case: SC

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

The Supreme Court on Friday regretted that the Election Commission of Pakistan failed to ‘appreciate its constitutional authority’ vis-à-vis the executive branch in the context of Article 220 of the Constitution in the Punjab polls case.

The said article of the Constitution says that it shall be the duty of all executive authorities in the federation and provinces to assist the commissioner and the ECP in the discharge of his or their functions.

The 25-page detailed judgment, authored by Justice Munib Akhtar, in a matter wherein a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial held that elections of the Punjab Assembly should be held on May 14 said:

“It is a matter of regret that the Commission failed to appreciate Article 220 in its true perspective, and did not fully understand its constitutional meaning and import. The constitutional relationship between the commission and the executive authorities in the context of Article 220 unambiguously and unequivocally gives the upper hand to the former and not the latter.”

The top court added that regrettably, when the record is examined it appears that the electoral watchdog acted as though the constitutional position was the reverse.

“The impression created is not that of a constitutional organ robustly and muscularly exercising a constitutional power in relation to those on whom the Constitution has imposed an express duty in this regard. The impression, rather, is almost that of a supplicant timorously approaching a superior,” it maintained.

For example, in a recital appearing on the printed Page 6 of the impugned order, it is recorded that the commission “approached the federal government to provide necessary guidance”.

The judgment also noted that it is not for the commission to seek guidance or to make the best efforts. “This is a negation and inversion of Article 220. It is for the commission to exercise constitutional power and for the executive authorities to fulfill a constitutional duty.”
The judgment further noted that it could be asked, what could the commission do if the executive authorities failed or refused to fulfill their constitutional duties under Article 220. The answer, on the constitutional and legal plane, is clear.

Related Posts

Get Alerts