ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favour of Member of National Assembly (MNA) Adil Bazai’s appeal and overturned the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) order to de-seat the lawmaker.
Previously, the ECP had disqualified Bazai under Article 63-A, after Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) President Nawaz Sharif filed a petition, moving the commission after the lawmaker reportedly voted against party lines. Despite this, Bazai maintains that he is an independent MNA.
Bazai, a lawmaker from Quetta, approached the Supreme Court after being disqualified by the election commission on November 21.
The bench, headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, ruled to suspend the ECP’s decision, with the detailed judgement to be issued later.
In the short order, Bazai’s notification of de-notification from NA-262 was suspended, allowing him to remain in office.
Later, the election commission suspended the notification to de-notify Bazai as a lawmaker. The de-notification of Bazai from NA-262 has been suspended by the Supreme Court until the final decision is announced, said the ECP.
The hearing
During today’s hearing, the Supreme Court raised several questions regarding the election commission’s procedures.
Justice Ayesha Malik asked what kind of inquiry the ECP had conducted to verify the facts in the Bazai case. Justice Aqeel Abbasi remarked that it was not acceptable to de-seat a person just because a letter from a senior official had arrived.
Justice Shah pointed out that the criteria for disenfranchising an entire constituency should be stringent.
Sardar Taimoor, the lawyer representing Bazai, noted that the matter reached the ECP, and the following day, the action was taken without any proper documentation.
He further explained that they had approached the Balochistan High Court to request the necessary documents, specifically a sworn affidavit detailing Bazai’s affiliation with the PML-N. However, the ECP responded by claiming that such documents were confidential.
Justice Ayesha also called on the ECP’s Director General of Law to appear before the court and questioned why the ECP had accepted one affidavit as valid without conducting any inquiry.
She asked whether the ECP could simply reject one affidavit and accept another without thorough verification. Justice Ayesha also inquired whether the ECP considered itself above the law and whether it had disregarded the courts and magistrates.
Justice Shah queried whether the ECP had the authority to conduct a trial in such a case. He further asked where the ECP derived its trial court powers from.
He noted that the ECP’s approach appeared to be bulldozing the issue without proper legal justification.
The court also raised concerns about the ECP’s methods for determining facts, questioning which law granted it the power to conduct an inquiry in this context.
During the proceedings, the lawyer representing PML-N, Haris Azmat, acknowledged the court’s questions, but Justice Shah observed that while the questions were valid, the responses from the ECP had been inadequate.
