The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on Friday issued the long-awaited schedule for the Feb. 8, 2024 general elections after a three-member bench of the Supreme Court suspended a Lahore High Court (LHC) stay order against the appointment of district returning officers (DROs), returning officers (ROs) and assistant returning officers (AROs) from the bureaucracy.
Election schedule
Dec. 19, 2023 Public notices to be issued by returning officers
Dec. 20-22, 2023 Filing of nomination papers by candidates
Dec. 23, 2023 Publication of names of nominated candidates
Dec. 24-30, 2023 Scrutiny of nomination papers by ROs
Jan. 3, 2024 Last date to challenge the rejection/acceptance of nominations
Jan. 10, 2024 Last date for Appellate Tribunals decide appeals
Jan. 11, 2024 Publication of revised list of candidates
Jan. 12, 2024 Last date to withdraw candidacy; publication of final list
Jan. 13, 2024 Allotment of election symbols to contesting candidates
Feb. 8, 2024 Polling day
SC proceedings
Earlier this week, speculation over a delay to polls reached a fevered pitch after the LHC, on a petition filed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), issued a stay order on the appointment of election officials from the bureaucracy. The PTI’s petition had contended that the bureaucracy could not ensure a “level playing field” and that election officials should be appointed from the judiciary to guarantee free and fair polls. However, the stay order had halted the ongoing seven-day training of already appointed DROs, ROs, and AROs, with observers noting this would inevitably lead to a delay in the polls despite SC orders stating the Feb. 8, 2024 date was “written in stone.”
On Friday afternoon, Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Sikandar Sultan Raja reached the Supreme Court and held a meeting with Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and Justices Ijazul Ahsan and Sardar Tariq Masood, as well as Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan to inform them of the situation. Subsequently, the ECP filed a petition seeking an urgent hearing, noting the LHC orders risked an unspecified delay to the polls.
In the evening, a three-member bench led by the CJP and comprising Justices Masood and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah took up with petition, with the ECP represented by Sajeel Shaharyar Swati and the federation by the AGP.
“Accordingly in the given circumstances and considering the constitutional and legal stipulation, the judgement of the LHC is hereby suspended,” read the order dictated by the CJP at the conclusion of proceedings. It also issued a notice to PTI Additional Secretary General Umair Niazi, who had approached the LHC against the appointment of election officials from the executive. It directed him to submit an explanation as to why action should not be initiated against him under the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, read with Article 204 of the Constitution, for disregarding the apex court’s judgement that led to President Arif Alvi and the ECP deciding to hold elections on Feb. 8.
The bench also regretted that the LHC judge who suspended the appointment of election officials had acted in haste, disregarding the ECP’s contention that all chief justices of high courts had refused to lend judicial officers for the conduct of elections. It further stated that the ECP would issue the election program on Friday night, adding its notification to suspend the training of election staff was withdrawn.
During proceedings, the SC observed it appeared that the political party—the PTI—on whose petition orders were issued to conduct polls on Feb. 8 did not appear inclined to conduct polls. “I don’t know, is this petition bona fide?” the CJP questioned, seeking clarity on whether Niazi had acted in a personal capacity or as a PTI office-bearer.
“Does it constitute misconduct on part of the high court judge for ignoring even the earlier direction of the Supreme Court?” he further questioned, noting the LHC order impacted all of Pakistan, exceeding the court’s territorial jurisdiction and ignoring the Supreme Court judgement. The CJP stressed all high court judges must stay within the confines of the Constitution “especially when his own CJ says that he cannot spare judicial officers since it will adversely affect the working of the lower judiciary already facing a pendency of 1.3 million cases.”
During proceedings, the apex court also expressed surprise that the petition filed by Niazi had challenged Sections 50 and 51(1) of the Elections Act, 2017—pertaining to the appointment of ROs and AROs—for being unconstitutional and void. Counsel Swati argued these provisions had also existed in the 2018 elections and no other challenges were ever raised against them.
To the court’s probing, Swati explained that the ECP had a strict timeline for ensuring polls on Feb. 8, maintaining if the stay order remained in the field, it risked deviation from the date. The bench regretted the LHC judge had suspended the ECP notification of appointing the election staff unilaterally, while also seeking the formation of a larger bench by the LHC chief justice. It observed LHC Justice Ali Baqir Najafi had disregarded Article 199 of the Constitution, as well as remedies available for grievances against the appointment of any election staff under Section 55(3) of the Elections Act.
During the hearing, the ECP counsel explained the electoral body had already written letters to the CJs of high courts, who had all refused to provide judicial officers for election duties. The court also issued notices to the federal government as well as the AGP and advocate generals of all the provinces.