The legal dispute between the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Supreme Court regarding reserved seats has escalated, with the ECP submitting a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s explanation issued on September 14.
In its petition, the ECP argues that it is not to blame for delays in the court’s decisions and references a request for clarification submitted on July 25 regarding a ruling on reserved seats that was delivered on July 12. The petition highlights that the Supreme Court addressed the clarification request on September 14, raising questions about when the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was issued a notice to respond. It emphasizes that the ECP did not receive any notice regarding the PTI’s documents or any request for a reply.
The ECP’s review petition also points out that, following its clarification request, parliament enacted a new law. Consequently, the ECP has asked the Supreme Court to reassess its explanation from September 14 concerning the ECP’s earlier petition.
Despite several consultation meetings regarding the court’s July 12 majority decision, the ECP has once again sought further clarification from the Supreme Court. It argues that the Elections Amendment Act was not in place when the initial clarification was requested based on the July 12 ruling. Given the new law enacted by parliament, the ECP is requesting guidance on whether to implement this law or adhere to the Supreme Court’s decision.
Previously, the Supreme Court had denied the ECP’s request for clarification. Meanwhile, the implementation of the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the allocation of reserved seats to the PTI has encountered additional challenges. The ECP has held multiple meetings recently that have yielded no results concerning the situation arising from the amendments made to the Elections Act by parliament. The Supreme Court’s majority decision stated that if there was any ambiguity, either the ECP or the PTI could seek clarification. Following the brief verdict, the ECP had previously filed an application, leading to the Supreme Court’s explanation on September 14, which mandated full compliance with the ruling on reserved seats.
Follow us on our social media platforms here: Twitter WHATSAPP CHANNEL FACEBOOK PAGE
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.