The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court has rejected a petition that called for a rule stipulating that only candidates who secure more than 50% of the votes in elections can be declared winners.
The seven-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, included Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Masarat Hilali heard the case.
The bench also fined the petitioner Rs. 20,000 for what it termed as “frivolous litigation.” During the hearing, Justice Muhammad Mazhar remarked, “Under which constitutional clause should a candidate be required to secure 50% of the vote? Election results are determined by the votes cast, and nothing can be done about voters who choose not to participate.”
Justice Ayesha Malik remarked, “First, tell us which of the petitioner’s fundamental rights has been violated and which constitutional articles are being breached.” Justice Jamal Mandokhail added that if a new law is to be made, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to do so.
Petitioner Akram argued that all fundamental rights are tied to the questions raised in this petition, and that Parliament makes decisions about their lives. Justice Aminuddin Khan responded, “Parliament does not decide on life itself.”
Justice Musarrat Hilali commented, “Everyone has the right to vote, but on polling day, people watch TV instead of voting. If voters do not vote, that is a failure on their part.”
Justice Mandokhail then asked, “Did you cast your vote in the February 2024 election?” Petitioner Muhammad Akram replied that he did not cast his vote in the election. In response, Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked, R20;Then you are disrespecting the Constitution.”
The constitutional bench imposed a fine of 20,000 rupees on the petitioner for filing a baseless lawsuit.
The petitioner suggested that a fine of at least Rs 100 billion should be imposed to reduce the country’s debt, to which Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked, “You don’t have the means to pay a fine of Rs100 billion.”
When the constitutional bench began hearing the appeal regarding the requirement for independent candidates to join political parties, petitioner Maulvi Iqbal Haider appeared via video link and stated that the matter had already been resolved, rendering his petition ineffective.
Justice Aminuddin Khan noted, “Permission was granted for you to appear in the court premises, and that should suffice for you.” On these grounds, the constitutional bench dismissed the petition as ineffective.
During the hearing, FBR’s lawyer informed the court that notices had not been served to many parties in the case. The lawyer noted that the case challenges the rulings of both the Lahore and Karachi High Courts and that approximately 400 addresses might be incorrect.
The constitutional bench ordered that notices be published in newspapers to ensure service compliance. The FBR lawyer added that the issue of appeal admissibility is also part of the case. The court stated that it would address this issue in the next hearing. The bench adjourned the case for three weeks.
Nguồn bài viết : kết quả 1.nét
.jpg)
