Supreme Court suspends LHC order regarding hiring of ROs, DROs for elections

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Friday suspended the Lahore High Court (LHC) order suspending the Election Commission of Pakistan’s notification regarding the appointment of returning officers (ROs) and district returning officers (DROs) for the general election 2024.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, heard the ECP’s appeal against the LHC order, which was issued on Thursday on a petition filed by Umair Niazi, a worker of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

The Supreme emphasized the imperative of ensuring elections on February 8, 2024, stating unequivocally that no one will be permitted to undermine and derail democracy.

The Supreme Court said that if the Lahore High Court’s decision was allowed to take effect, it may impede the timely conduct of elections.

The court further clarified that, should the Lahore High Court maintain jurisdiction, the scheduled February 8 elections would be in jeopardy.

The Supreme Court restrained Lahore High Court from taking action on the petition related to ROs and DROs. The Election Commission was directed to maintain its constitutional responsibilities.

The Supreme Court decree stated that the election commission should continue its constitutional responsibilities and release the election schedule within three hours today.

The Supreme Court said that the Lahore High Court has halted over a 1,000 DROs and ROs from performing their duties. “These officers are mandated to provide services nationwide, as highlighted in the ECP notification. The high court has expanded its jurisdiction beyond boundaries, and no one will be allowed to derail democracy,” the chief justice said in the order.

In its order, the Supreme Court said that Umair Niazi, who remained a former assistant advocate general of Punjab, attempted to obstruct the democratic process and violated the Supreme Court’s orders regarding the general election.

The Supreme Court observed that this was an attempt to create confusion and delay the electoral process. The court also noted that Niazi, being a barrister, should have known the orders of the Supreme Court and respected them.

The court asked why contempt proceedings should not be initiated aagainst Niazi for contempt of court. The ECP replied that the court should initiate contempt proceedings against him. The court accepted the request and issued a notice to Niazi.

The court also asked he ECP to start the training programme for the ROs and DROs.

The ECP said that it was a difficult task to call all the officers at one place and that the training programme would start on Monday.

The court said that it was not its job to decide the date of the training programme and that the ECP should have completed it earlier.

Election uncertainty: ECP moves Supreme Court against LHC verdict

Earlier, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) moved the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challanging the LHC verdict that had turned down a notification issued by the poll body to hire the services of bureacrats as returning officers and district returing officers to conduct the general elections.

At the onset of the proceedings, the ECP’s lawyer, Sajeel Swati, told the court that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) worker and lawyer Umair Niazi had challenged the ROs decision under Sections 50 and 51 of the Election Act 2017. He said that the Lahore High Court had stopped the election process by suspending the ECP’s decision to hire ROs and DROs from the bureaucracy.

He argued that the ECP had the authority to appoint ROs and DROs from any suitable source, and that the judicial officers were not available for the task. He said that the ECP had written a letter to the judiciary in February for the appointment of judicial officers, but the judiciary had shown its inability to provide them due to pending cases.

He said that the Islamabad High Court did not respond to the ECP’s letter, while the Peshawar High Court referred the matter to the Judicial Policy Making Committee. He said that the ECP had no option but to appoint administrative officers as ROs and DROs.

The bench asked the ECP’s lawyer why the petitioners had challenged the ECP’s decision at this stage, when the relevant clause of the Election Act could have been challenged at any time. The bench also asked what was the obstacle to a transparent election, and whether the petitioners wanted to postpone the elections after the Lahore High Court’s letter.

The ECP’s lawyer, Sajeel Swati, argued that the LHC order was in violation of the Constitution and the law, and that it would disrupt the preparations for the elections, which were scheduled to be held on February 8, 2024. He said that the LHC had not heard the ECP’s position before passing the order, and that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the appointments of the DROs and ROs.

The chief justice expressed surprise and displeasure over the LHC order, and said that it was an attempt to derail democracy and insult the Supreme Court, which had approved the ECP’s code of conduct for the elections. He said that the petitioner was trying to create chaos and confusion in the electoral process, and questioned the conduct of the LHC judge who had issued the order.

The Attorney General said that he was unaware of the petition filed in the LHC, and that he had instructed the additional attorney general to appear before the court.

The bench suspended the LHC order. The bench also directed the ECP to resume the training of the DROs and ROs, which had been suspended after the LHC order.