The hearing on the request of the Election Commission to review the order to hold elections on May 14 in Punjab has started.
A 3-member bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandial is conducting the hearing.
Justice Ejazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar are included in the bench.
Election Commission lawyer Sujeel Swati came to the rostrum and said that the response of the federal government and the Punjab government has just been received, PTI has not submitted a written response.
The lawyer argued that no answer was provided to me in advance.
May we help you understand what the answers say? Chief Justice
The Chief Justice of Pakistan asked whether we should help you to find out what is said in the answers. First you have to explain how new grounds can be taken in the revision petition.
The lawyer of the Election Commission said that the Supreme Court Rules have been made by the Supreme Court itself under the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot exercise powers outside the criminal and civil jurisdiction.
The lawyer said that Article 188 of the Supreme Court’s power of review does not limit but expands the powers.
The Constitution allows the Supreme Court to review its decisions, the Chief Justice
Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial said that the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to review its decisions, now go ahead.
The lawyer of the Election Commission said that the proceedings under Article 184-3 are not of a civil nature.
Justice Ijazul Hassan remarked that one part of Article 184-3 is public interest and the other is fundamental rights.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked the lawyer of the Election Commission that if the election case was decided by the High Court, wouldn’t it be a civil case?
The constitutional authority of the High Court is greater than that of the Supreme Court, advocate Election Commission
The lawyer replied that the constitutional authority of the High Court is greater than that of the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice addressed the counsel of the Election Commission and said that according to you, the jurisdiction of revision is not limited but the procedure is limited.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar questioned why the Supreme Court should decide its jurisdiction in the revision case.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asked whether the Supreme Court can use all its powers listed in the Constitution.
Why should the Supreme Court create ambiguity in its jurisdiction? Justice Muneeb Akhtar
Justice Muneeb Akhtar while giving remarks said that according to you, the jurisdiction of the court is limited if the appeal comes from the High Court. Why should the Supreme Court create ambiguity in its jurisdiction?
Election Commission lawyer Sajil Swati told the court that there is no right of appeal in Article 184-3, the scope of revision cannot be limited due to lack of right of appeal.
The original civil jurisdiction is vested in the High Court, the Chief Justice
Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandyal said that the High Court has the original civil jurisdiction.
Lawyer Sujeel Swati argued that this is the first case of its kind, more than 24 decisions were read but the limit of revision authority was not written in any of them.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that if the framers of the constitution have limited the scope of the review so as not to go beyond the text of the main case, why should we not call it a re-hearing of the same case instead of a review?
A new point can be raised in constitutional cases, lawyer Sujeel Swati
Lawyer Sujeel Swati said that the court has to take into account the requirements of justice in the review, the court should not get involved in the procedure of the code in the review, a new point can be raised in the constitutional cases.
Justice Muneeb asked lawyer Sujeel Swati whether it is your argument that the revision hearing in 184-3 should be conducted like an appeal.
The lawyer of the Election Commission replied that this is exactly what I am saying, the revision in 184 three is actually an appeal, the jurisdiction of revision in the case of 184 three should not be limited.
You have raised very good points in the arguments, Chief Justice’s dialogue with the lawyer
The Chief Justice while talking to the lawyer of the Election Commission said that you have raised very good points in the arguments, the court references on these points are not satisfactory, you should limit your arguments only to revision.
PTI has submitted its reply in the Punjab Election Revision Case
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) submitted its reply in the Punjab Election Review Case.
Tehreek-e-Insaf requested the Election Commission to reject the review appeal.
PTI has said in its reply that the Election Commission has raised new points in the revision appeal, new points cannot be raised in the revision appeal, the Election Commission wants to give fresh arguments in the revision appeal.
The court set a deadline for elections in 90 days, Tehreek-e-Insaf
In the reply, it has been said that the court did not give any date in its decision, the court set the deadline for the elections in 90 days, the President gave the date of April 30 for the elections, the Election Commission changed the date of April 30. done.
Tehreek-e-Insaf said that the Supreme Court covered the delay of April 30 by annulling the decision of the Election Commission. There was a delay of 13 days in the date of April 30. The court covered the delay of 13 days in the decision. The Election Commission wanted The Supreme Court should revive the doctrine of necessity.
The ideology of necessity has been buried and cannot be revived, PTI
The reply said that the doctrine of necessity has been buried which cannot be revived, election within 90 days is a constitutional requirement, Article 224 cannot be ignored in the light of Article 218, the Constitution gives the power to dissolve the Assembly. It is not written in the constitution that all the elections will be held simultaneously.
PTI has also said in response that the Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution at the behest of the Election Commission, Article 224 cannot be invalidated within 90 days of elections for Article 254, without looking at the ground realities of the Constitution. The argument of the doctrine of necessity is dangerous, such a dangerous argument has been used in the past to break the constitution, the court has forever rejected such an argument.
The decision of the Supreme Court on April 4
It should be noted that the Supreme Court in its judgment on April 4 ordered to hold elections in Punjab on May 14.
Despite the passing of the deadline of May 14, the court order could not be implemented. On May 3, the Election Commission filed an application for review of the court decision.
The Election Commission had raised an objection to giving a date for the Supreme Court elections.
The Supreme Court had issued a notice to the parties while hearing the case on May 15.