In the wake of a brief but unsettling period that raised concerns about the potential indefinite delay of general elections, the SC’s verdict, which came in response to the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) petition has ensured that there would not be delay in polls.
The Supreme Court bench, headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, criticized the Lahore High Court for exceeding its jurisdiction and acting hastily in response to a Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) petition contesting the appointment of bureaucrats for election responsibilities. The court reiterated its November 3 verdict, emphasizing the imperative of safeguarding democracy against any attempts to derail it.
Even before the ECP applied the brakes on the election process, speculations about potential delays to the February 8 polls were rife. Various officials, politicians, and commentators were quoted in the media, presenting their views as ‘evidence’ that the polls might not proceed as scheduled. Some political figures attempted to create confusion, citing reasons such as escalating terror attacks and adverse weather conditions to advocate for an indefinite postponement.
While the excuse related to weather may be considered farcical, the concern about violence affecting certain constituencies is acknowledged. In such cases, holding by-polls on those seats when the situation improves could be a viable solution. However, it remains the state’s responsibility to ensure a secure environment free from terror for the conduct of elections.
Turning to the case in the Lahore High Court, the PTI’s decision to challenge the appointment of bureaucrats as returning officers and district returning officers was deemed ill-advised. The fear expressed was that these individuals might facilitate ‘rigging.’ Strangely, bureaucrats had been appointed to assist the ECP during the 2018 elections, which brought the PTI to power.
Furthermore, when the judiciary is unwilling to second its staff to the ECP, the commission’s recourse to requisition the bureaucracy for election duties becomes a logical choice. The Lahore High Court, in issuing its order, should have considered the broader context, giving precedence to the constitutional requirement of timely elections.
The country is already in a state of constitutional limbo due to the failure to conduct polls on time, and this condition of legal inertia cannot persist indefinitely. All parties must refrain from offering excuses that could justify further postponements of the polls.
