Supreme Court’s constitutional bench rejects plea seeking to declare candidates successful with 50% votes
ISLAMABAD, Nov 18 (SABAH): The Supreme Court of Pakistan’s seven-member constitutional bench on Monday heard multiple pending cases before the apex court.
The bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, includes Justice Jamal Khan Mandhokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
During the hearing on Monday, the court dismissed the petition seeking to declare candidates receiving over 50% of votes as successful in elections. The petitioner, Advocate Chaudhry Muhammad Akram, was also slapped with a Rs20,000 fine for filing a “frivolous” petition.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned under which constitutional provision a candidate must secure 50% of votes to win. He emphasised that election outcomes are determined by the votes cast.
Justice Ayesha A. Malik asked which fundamental right of the petitioner was violated and which constitutional provisions were being breached. She added that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to legislate new laws.
The petitioner argued that Parliament decides the course of people’s lives, to which Justice Aminuddin Khan responded that Parliament does not make such decisions.
Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked that everyone has the right to vote but noted that people often watch television on polling day instead of voting. She stated that if voters fail to cast their votes, it reflects their own shortcomings.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail inquired if the petitioner had cast their vote in the February 2024 election. When the petitioner admitted they had not, Justice Mandokhail remarked that such behaviour disrespects the Constitution.
The bench then imposed a Rs20,000 fine for frivolous litigation, with Justice Aminuddin Khan dismissing the petitioner’s suggestion of a Rs100 billion penalty to reduce the national debt, pointing out the petitioner’s inability to pay such an amount.
The bench also heard a plea regarding making it mandatory for independent candidates to join political parties. The petitioner appeared before the bench via video link.
Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the permission granted to the petitioner to appear on court premises should suffice. The petitioner acknowledged that the matter had already been resolved, rendering their appeal ineffective.
Subsequently, the constitutional bench dismissed the petition on the grounds of becoming infructuous.
During the hearing on a plea challenging the Income Levy Tax Act 2013, the Federal Board of Revenue’s (FBR) counsel said many parties involved in the cases have not received notices.
The lawyer added it might have been possibly due to incorrect addresses for around 400 individuals. The court directed that notices be served through advertisements in newspapers to ensure compliance.
Furthermore, the court also threw out a petition seeking blacklisting of real estate giant Bahria Town over non-pursuance of the case by the petitioner. The petitioner, Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi, failed to appear before the case during the hearing.