Daily Times

Supreme Court Judge Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail expressed serious reservations over the invoking of suo motu jurisdiction regarding the delay in the election date announcements for Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Assemblies, saying that it was not ‘justified’, a private TV channel reported. Partaking in the nine-member larger bench that heard the matter, Justice Mandokhail read the written note wherein he stated that late last night he received a file that the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial took suo motu notice on the basis of an order passed by Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan and Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, which was filed by Ghulam Mehmood Dogar against the order dated November 24, 2022, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) in respect of his transfer. “Learned Mr Abid S Zuberi is the counsel for Ghulam Mehmood Dogar. The petition of Ghulam Mehmood Dogar was pending when on February 16 the members of the bench called the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), who was not a party to the petition and asked about the holding of elections to the Provincial Assembly of Punjab”. The note maintained that “irrespective of the reply of the CEC, Justices Ahsan and Naqvi deemed it appropriate to refer the matter to the CJP to take suo motu notice”. It furthered that the matter pertaining to the election had “no nexus or connection with the abovementioned service matter to the former chief minister about the pending case”.

Justice Mandokhail stated that three audio recordings emerged and in one recording it was learned that Abid Zuberi was reportedly talking about Ghulam Mehmood Dogar. The judge added that this was “very serious”. “Besides the learned judges have already expressed their opinion by stating that elections are required to be held within 90 days and that there was imminent danger of violation of the Constitution”. He maintained that the CJP added to the points mentioned by the two learned judges and also expressed his opinion and that such “definite opinions have decided this matter and done so without taking into consideration Article 10(a) of the Constitution”. “Thus, in these circumstances, it was not appropriate to refer the matter to the chief justice for taking suo motu notice under Article 184(3) of the Constitution,” he said, reiterating that the suo motu action was not justified.