ISLAMABAD, Oct 5: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to stay the presidential election, but directed the Election Commission not to notify the result till it gave its verdict on petitions challenging the eligibility of Gen Pervez Musharraf to run for the office of president.

After hearing arguments for and against staying the election, a 10-member bench of the apex court unanimously decided on Friday that the election process should continue in accordance with the schedule announced by the Election Commission, but the result should be withheld till the disposal of petitions challenging General Musharraf’s candidature. The court will now hear the case on Oct 17.

The bench is headed by Justice Javed Iqbal and comprises Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, Justice Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Faqir Mohammad Khokar, Justice Tasadduq Hussain Jilani, Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Justice Syed Jamshed Ali and Justice Ghulam Rabbani.

Talking to reporters after the court verdict, Attorney-General Malik Mohammad Qayyum said the polling would take place on Saturday and the unofficial result would be available by evening.

He said Gen Musharraf would remain in uniform till the issuance of the official notification of the result and would quit the army before taking oath for another term as president.

He said it was a matter of satisfaction that the government’s viewpoint had been accepted by the court. He said the democratic process would not be halted and the election would be held in accordance with the Constitution.

Answering a question, he said the government side was not reluctant to argue on the issue of Gen Musharraf’s eligibility. The Chief Election Commissioner, he said, had already cleared his candidature.

He also said there was no constitutional hurdle to the present assemblies electing a president.

Giving arguments before the bench, the attorney-general cited judgments of Indian courts and constitution and said the electoral process could not be interfered with. He cited a case when elections were conducted in India despite dissolution of two assemblies after the court held that it could not interfere in a constitutional process.

When Justice Ramday said heavens would not fall if the election was put off till Oct 10 or 13, Mr Qayyum said the court could not alter the election schedule announced by the Election Commission, without crossing the bar under Article 41 (6) of the Constitution.

Justice Ramday said the bar had been crossed several times by the court in various cases. He said there would be sufficient time available because President Musharraf’s term expired on Nov 17.

The attorney-general insisted that the election was taking place in accordance with the Constitution and should not be stayed. He requested the court to decide the main petitions, even if it had to sit for 24 hours.

When Justice Abbasi asked if the Election Commission would issue a new schedule or if the court could do it in case the election was stayed, Mr Qayyum said the court could not assume the powers of a constitutional institution.

He said the petitioners were seeking a stay because they wanted dissolution of the NWFP assembly. He said Gen Musharraf had already said he would doff his military uniform after his election.

When Justice Mulk asked if the election could be stopped under extraordinary circumstances, senior lawyer Sharifuddin Pirzada quoted a statement of the chief justice: “We will not allow the system to be derailed.”

Wasim Sajjad, appearing for the government, said the NWFP assembly would be dissolved if a stay was granted. When Justice Ramday asked if it had been assumed on the basis of a press report, Mr Sajjad said the electoral college could not be re-created if the assembly was dissolved.

Talking to journalists, Hamid Khan, the counsel for presidential candidate Justice (retd) Wajihuddin Ahmed, expressed his satisfaction over what he called partial relief given to the petitioners by the court. He said the president would not be able to take oath till the court’s decision on the petitions.

Wasim Sajjad said there would be complete democratic system in the country on Nov 16 with a civilian president in place. He described the court’s decision as a milestone in the country’s history, saying it would lead the country to complete democracy. He said there was no hurdle now to the presidential election and people’s representatives would choose a president in a free atmosphere.

Advocate Khalid Ranjha said the court’s order to withhold the election result would make no difference. Under the Constitution, he said, the court could not intervene in the election.

Justice (retd) Tariq Mahmood, another counsel for Justice Wajihuddin, said the court decision did not mean defeat of the petitioner, who had been given ‘half relief’.