ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court threw out on Wednesday a set of three petitions, seeking the annulment of the 2013 general elections after all three complainants failed to convince the court after the day’s hearing.

“These petitions are dismissed,” was the one-line order, handed down by Chief Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk after hearing the three petitions.

Former Supreme Court judge Mahmood Akhter Shahid Siddiqui, one of the petitioners seeking fresh elections, was also present in Courtroom No. 1 on Wednesday.

The other complainants, former federal minister Zahid Sarfraz and Mr Daud Ghaznavi, had also asked the court to strike down the elections on the grounds that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had failed to conduct them honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with the law.

But the three-judge Supreme Court bench, which included Justice Amir Hani Muslim and Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, appeared reluctant to exercise its jurisdiction in view of the constitutional bar, under Article 225 of the Constitution, which provides that election tribunals are the only forum that can adjudicate on electoral disputes. The court was also not impressed by the absence of solid evidence to establish the claim that the elections were non-transparent and heavily rigged.

Court maintains that election tribunals are the competent forum for electoral disputes

“We cannot overlook Article 225,” Justice Muslim observed, and asked the counsel how the court could investigate such controversies, which required inquiry and supporting evidence.

The swift decision was hailed by members of the legal community. Supreme Court Bar Association President Kamran Murtaza appreciated the verdict on what he termed a ‘politically-motivated petition’. Even if there were weaknesses in the last elections, these would ultimately be phased out if things were allowed to move forward and democratic institutions were allowed to flourish, he suggested.

Senior counsel Chaudhry Faisal Hussain said that the court had dashed the hopes of former SC judge Akhter Shahid and had upheld the Constitution by acting purely as a legal body and not a populist court – as had been its hallmark under a former chief justice.

“It is a step in the right direction and I hope that the court will keep following this path by upholding the Constitution in other pending cases also,” Mr Hussain said.

Advocate Mian Allah Nawaz, representing the former judge, argued that even Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had admitted on the floor of the National Assembly that more than 30,000 ballot papers in every constituency were unverifiable because the thumb impressions could not be read. But the counsel candidly conceded that he did not have any substantial proof to back up the allegations and requested the court to summon the official statements since no one had access to those.

But the Supreme Court was more worried about the consequences of the petitions’ acceptance, which would lead to the unseating all members of the National Assembly as well as the provincial assemblies, elected as the result of the 2013 general elections.

“Are they (legislators) not a necessary party to the proceedings? Why has the petitioner not impleaded them as a party to the petition,” asked the chief justice while pointing towards Mian Nawaz.

Though the counsel accepted that the members would ultimately be affected by the court’s decision, he could only say that the matter at hand was of a unique nature, unprecedented in the history of the subcontinent and that the Supreme Court had the authority to deliver justice in this case.

The counsel said that all the political parties had claimed that the elections were rigged and made particular reference to the appointment of returning officers, which has been heavily criticised. Referring to Article 225, the counsel argued that the constitutional provision, as well as the stipulations of the Representation of Peoples Act of 1976 does not deal with pre-poll arrangements, since these arrangements are the exclusive domain of the ECP. Therefore, Article 225 does not apply in the present case.

The counsel asked the court to summon the ECP and order that all ballot papers without indelible ink be struck down and the votes be counted again.

However, the bench maintained there was nothing on the record to prove that the elections were rigged, except the petitions, which too did not contain any supporting evidence. Mere allegations are not enough to prove rigging, the court ruled.

Published in Dawn, October 30th , 2014