ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) on Thursday challenged the presidential ordinance that fixed a deadline of 60 days for elected members to take the oath.

The PML-N, through its parliamentary party leader in the Senate Azam Nazeer Tarar, filed a petition in the Islamabad High Court against the Elections (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 2021, seeking to require elected members to take the oath within 60 days of commencement of the first sitting of their respective legislature.

The petition said the opposition party was aggrieved by the mala fide and person-specific legislation promulgated by the Ministry of Law and Justice to target the PML-N.

The petition stated that President Arif Alvi HAD on Sept 1 signed the ordinance to amend Section 72 of the Elections Act by adding proviso 72A, which states: “Seat becoming vacant on not making oath within 60 days, the seat of a returned candidate shall become vacant, if he willfully does not make an oath within 60 days from the date of first sitting of the National Assembly, Senate, Provincial Assembly or Local Government or within 40 days of the promulgation of this Ordinance as the case may be.”

Tells SC it’s a person-specific legislation promulgated to target the party

The petition went on to state: “While the next general elections are to be held until the year 2023, and the next Senate elections are not to be held until 2024, the impugned ordinance was passed less than a month after the National Assembly was prorogued on August 12, 2021. As such, it represents one piece of legislation in a broader pattern of using ordinances to circumvent the constitutionally mandated, democratic legislative process in parliament.”

It pointed out that prior to the promulgation of the ordinance, the National Assembly had already passed a bill titled Elections Amendment Act, 2020, which was also laid before the Senate for its consideration, adding that the bill is currently before the Senate Standing Committee on Parliamentary Affairs. Clause 25 of the bill seeks to insert Section 72A to the Elections Act, which is almost identical, in language, to the impugned ordinance. The impugned ordinance has been promulgated while the bill is under consideration by the Senate.

The petition referred to the Supreme Court’s judgement which states: “While courts are ordinarily wary of interfering in legislative actions, the Supreme Court has held that where a pre-requisite for the exercise of power has been provided in the relevant constitutional provision, the court may inquire into whether or not it has been fulfilled.”

The petition requested the court to set aside the ordinance.

Published in Dawn, October 1st, 2021