مخصوص نشستوں کے کیس میں اکثریتی فیصلہ دینے والے سپریم کورٹ کے 8 ججز نے وضاحت جاری کردی گئی۔
سپریم کورٹ میں مخصوص نشستوں کے کیس میں الیکشن کمیشن اور پاکستان تحریک انصاف (پی ٹی آئی) کی درخواستوں پر 8 رکنی بینچ نے وضاحت جاری کردی ہے۔
اکثریتی فیصلہ دینے والے ججوں نے وضاحت جاری کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ 12 جولائی کے فیصلے میں کوئی ابہام نہیں ہے۔
عدالت کا کہنا ہے کہ سپریم کورٹ کا 12 جولائی کا شارٹ آرڈر بہت واضح ہے، الیکشن کمیشن نے اس حکم کو غیر ضروری طور پر پیچیدہ بنایا ہے، فیصلے پر عملدرآمد نہ کرنے کے سنگین نتائج ہوں گے۔
سپریم کورٹ کا کہنا ہے کہ الیکشن کمیشن بیرسٹر گوہر کو چیئرمین پی ٹی آئی اور عمر ایوب کو سیکریٹری جنرل تسلیم کرچکا۔
مختصر حکم کے پیراگراف 8 میں واضح طور پر اعلان کیا گیا ہے کہ حاصل کردہ نشست فوراً اس سیاسی جماعت کی حاصل کردہ نشست تصور کی جائے گی، کوئی بعد کا عمل اس وقت کے متعلقہ تاریخوں پر ہونے والے معاہدے تبدیل نہیں کر سکتا، طے شدہ حیثیت کے مطابق یہ کامیاب امیدوار پی ٹی آئی کے امیدوار تھے، واضح معاملہ پیچیدہ بنانے، ابہام پیدا کرنے کی کوشش مسترد کی جاتی ہے۔
ججز کی وضاحت میں کہا گیا کہ کمیشن کے ذریعے جاری فہرست محض انتظامی عمل ہے، مقصد تمام متعلقہ افراد کو معلومات اور سہولت فراہم کرنا ہے، قانونی طور پر پابند ذمہ داری پوری کرنے میں ناکامی، انکار کے نتائج ہوسکتے ہیں، الیکشن کمیشن ذمے داری فوری پوری کرے۔
سپریم کورٹ کا کہنا ہے کہ الیکشن کمشین تسلیم کر چکا ہے پی ٹی آئی رجسٹرڈ سیاسی جماعت ہے، الیکشن کمشین کا تحریک انصاف ارکان کے سرٹیفکیٹ تسلیم نہ کرنا غلط ہے، الیکشن کمشین کو اس اقدام کے آئینی، قانونی نتائج کا سامنا بھی کرنا پڑ سکتا ہے، سرٹیفکیٹ جمع کروانے والے تمام ارکان تحریک انصاف کے تصور ہوں گے۔
فیصلے کا اطلاق قومی اور صوبائی اسمبلیوں پر بھی ہوگا، الیکشن کمیشن کی کنفیوژن پیدا کرنے کی کوشش کو سخت الفاظ میں مسترد کیا جاتا ہے، واضح کیا جا چکا فیصلے پر عملدرآمد نہ کرنے کے نتائج کا سامنا کرنا پڑ سکتا ہے۔
سپریم کورٹ نے الیکشن کمشین کو فیصلے پر فوری عملدرآمد کرنے کی ہدایت کر دی۔
عدالت نے کہا کہ انتخابی نشان سے محرومی کسی سیاسی جماعت کے حقوق ختم نہیں کرتی، پی ٹی آئی سیاسی جماعت تھی اور ہے، انتخابات میں نشستیں بھی حاصل کیں۔
سپریم کورٹ کا کہنا ہے کہ الیکشن کمشین کا وضاحت مانگنا دراصل عدالتی فیصلے پر عملدرآمد میں رکاوٹ ڈالنا ہے، الیکشن کمیشن بیرسٹر گوہر علی خان کو تحریک انصاف کا چیئرمین تسلیم کر چکا ہے، پارٹی چیئرمین تسلیم کرنے کے بعد الیکشن کمیشن اپنے مؤقف سے پھر نہیں سکتا۔
یاد رہے کہ 12 جولائی کو سپریم کورٹ نے مخصوص نشستوں کے کیس کا فیصلہ جاری کیا تھا۔
سپریم کورٹ نے قومی اور صوبائی اسمبلیوں میں(پی ٹی آئی کے حمایت یافتہ) اراکین کی بنیاد پر تخلیق پانے والی خواتین اور اقلیتوں کیلئے مخصوص نشستیں سنی اتحاد کونسل کو دینے کی بجائے دیگر پارلیمانی پارٹیوں کو الاٹ کرنے سے متعلق الیکشن کمیشن / پشاو رہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کیخلاف دائر کی گئی اپیلوں پر محفوظ کیا گیا فیصلہ جاری کرتے ہوئے الیکشن کمیشن اور پشاور ہائیکورٹ کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا تھا۔
Clarification order as sought by the Election Commission of Pakistan.
Turning now to the specific clarification purportedly sought, the PTI in its reply has annexed a number of notices issued by the Commission to the PTI through Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, in which it has itself identified the latter as the Chairman of PTI. Furthermore, the certifications required to be issued by a political party (here the PTI) and filed with the Commission in terms of paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Short Order have, as per the record placed before us in relation to the returned candidates (now respectively MNAs and MPAs) in the National and the Sindh, Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Assemblies, been issued under the signatures of Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Mr. Omar Ayub Khan, who are identified therein as being, respectively, the Chairman and Secretary General of the PTI. These certifications are dated 18.07.2024, 24.07.2024 and 25.07.2024 and list, in each case, the particulars of the relevant returned candidate (now MNA or MPA as the case may be) and in particular the dates on which the declaration required of the candidate (again, in terms of paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Short Order) was filed with the Commission. These dates obviously all precede the respective dates of certification.
Putting together the record placed before us, and considering the same in the light of the Short Order, leaves in little doubt that the clarification sought by the Commission in terms of the CMA 7540/2024 is nothing more than a contrived device and the adoption of dilatory tactics, adopted to delay, defeat and obstruct implementation of the decision of the Court. This cannot be countenanced. Even on the application of elementary principles of law, the application filed by the Commission is misconceived. Having itself recognized Barrister Gohar Ali Khan as the Chairman of PTI, the Commission cannot now turn around and purport to seek guidance from the Court with regard to how the certifications are to be dealt with. The Commission cannot approbate and reprobate, taking whatever (shifting) stance as it desires and as may seem to suit its immediate purposes for the moment. Furthermore, the Commission, even if one were to consider the application in the most sympathetic light, has apparently forgotten the well known de facto doctrine or rule, in terms of which the acts of a person who holds an office are protected even if there may be (and no such conclusion is reached here in relation to the PTI) any issue with the position de jure. It sufficed and the Commission was duty bound in terms of the Constitution to keep in mind that the admitted position (as stated before the Court during the hearing of the appeals) is that the PTI was, and is, an enlisted political party. This position was not only accepted and relied upon by us (eight Judges) but also by our three learned colleagues in minority (Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail). Their lordship appear to have also accepted the validity of the party certificates (party tickets) issued by Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and thus his capacity to act for PTI as its Chairman. Furthermore, having itself issued notices to the PTI through Barrister Gohar Ali Khan as its Chairman, the Commission gave recognition to both the party and the office holder. That sufficed absolutely for purposes of the Short Order. It would be completely illogical to assume that a political party, a juristic person, is fully functional yet there are no natural persons who are either de facto or de jure performing its functions or running its affairs. Saying (as the Commission now in effect does through CMA 7540/2024) that a political party is an enlisted political party, fully functional for the purposes of its formation, yet there is no one that can perform its functions and run its affairs, amounts to blowing hot and cold in the same breath or, as noted, approbating and reprobating one and the same fact. There could have been no conceivable doubt that the certifications referred to above were correct and valid in terms of the Short Order and the continued denial and refusal of the Commission to accept the same, as and when filed, is constitutionally and legally incorrect and may expose the Commission to such further or other action as may be warranted in terms of the Constitution and the law.
But there is another, and more fundamental, aspect that must also be alluded to. It was categorically declared in paragraph 8 of the Short Order that on filing the requisite statement and its confirmation by the political party concerned, the seat secured by such candidate shall be forthwith deemed to be a seat secured by that political party. Therefore, upon submission of the declarations and certifications referred to above, the position of the returned candidates (now respectively MNAs and MPAs) immediately and ipso facto stood determined and fixed as a matter of law as on those dates and no subsequent act can alter what became, on the respective dates, past and closed transactions. As per the position so determined, the said returned candidates were and are the returned candidates of PTI and thus members of the parliamentary party of PTI in the National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies concerned, for all constitutional and legal purposes. The attempt by the Commission to confuse and cloud what is otherwise absolutely clear as a matter of the Constitution and the law must therefore be strongly deprecated. The list required to be issued by the Commission in terms of paragraph 8 (read with paragraph 10) of the Short Order is nothing more than a ministerial act, for the information and convenience of all concerned, and has no substantive effect. Nonetheless, the continued failure of, and refusal by, the Commission to perform this legally binding obligation may, as noted, have consequences. This obligation must be discharged forthwith.
With the above clarifications, the present application is disposed of. Office shall dispatch a copy of this order to the respective parties.
C.A.333/2024
Sunni Ittehad Council through its Chairman, Faisalabad and another v. Election Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary, Islamabad and others
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
14-09-2024
0 Comments