ISLAMABAD, June 25: The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered postponement of by-elections to the NA-123 Lahore constituency from where PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif has been barred by the Lahore High Court from contesting.

“The election is stayed and case be fixed for next Monday,” announced a three-member bench. Justice Mohammad Moosa K. Leghari, Justice Syed Zawwar Hussain Shah and Justice Mohammad Farrukh Mahmood returned the verdict on an appeal by the government against the high court decision. The bench assembled after normal court timings to take up the hastily moved appeal.

The by-elections to the five remaining National Assembly and 25 provincial assembly seats will be held on Thursday as per schedule.

Chief Election Commissioner Qazi Mohammad Farooq notified postponement of the by-election for the NA-123 seat.

On Monday, the LHC, acting on petitions filed by Syed Khurram Ali Shah, a voter, and Noor Elahi, an independent candidate, had disallowed Nawaz Sharif from contesting the by-elections, but kept pending a separate petition against the candidature of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif until an election tribunal decides about his nomination.

The petitions in the high court were filed after the Election Commission allowed the Sharif brothers to contest the by-elections on technical grounds without deciding about the legal status of their nominations to offset a split verdict of an election tribunal on appeals challenging the candidature of the PML-N leaders.

Justice Hafiz Tariq Nasim had allowed the Sharifs to contest the June 26 by-polls while Justice Mohammad Akram Qureshi held them ineligible.

The federal government, in its petition, requested the Supreme Court to set aside the high court judgment by hearing the matter urgently and also staying the by-elections in Nawaz Sharif’s constituency.

The SC bench also put on notice other respondents in the appeal of the federal government, including Nawaz Sharif, the returning officer for NA-123 Lahore VI, Additional District and Sessions Judge Lahore Chaudhry Badar-ud-Din, the Election Appellate Tribunal for NA-123, the Election Commission and Syed Khurram Ali Shah.

Attorney-General Malik Mohammad Qayyum pleaded before the court that the instant appeal was a very important one and no harm would come if the by-election was stayed and the main appeal heard after two or three days.

“Nawaz Sharif is the head of a political party and with his ouster, no political party will be in the field in the elections,” he said, adding that the recent amendment to Section 14 of the Representation of the People’s Act had conferred the right upon even a voter to appeal in case of any grievance.

In reply to an argument by Advocate Akram Sheikh that Nawaz Sharif did not want to appear before the judges who had taken oath under the PCO, the attorney-general emphasised that presently there existed no PCO judges in the country because all the judges had taken oath under the Constitution.

“PCO judge is a term used for the ones who took oath of allegiance under the Provisional Constitution Order to President Pervez Musharraf who proclaimed emergency as the army chief on Nov 3,” Mr Qayyum contended.

Explaining the federal government’s decision to come in appeal, Deputy Attorney-General Raja Abdur Rehman told the court that the government was aggrieved because the high court had delivered its judgment in contravention of constitutional provisions and the petitioner who had challenged the candidature before the high court was not even a voter in the constituency.

Justice Moosa Leghari observed that the court could have given relief in a few minutes had the aggrieved person come before it in person.

Advocate Akram Sheikh said Noor Elahi was a candidate and instead of knocking at the doors of the election tribunal, he had filed the petition in the high court, against the provisions of the law.

Earlier, the bench heard similar appeals of Mehr Zafar Iqbal and Shakil Baig, argued by Akram Sheikh and A.K. Dogar.

Advocate Dogar cited the Asma Jillani case in which a question was also raised as to why the Supreme Court remained silent when martial law was clamped and suggested that in future judges of the superior courts should be arrested in case of the imposition of another martial law.