• choices( 2nd correction) Act 2024 gets presidential assent
• Legal experts believe SC will surely examine vires of rearmost law as it ‘ reverses direction’ of July 12 short order
• Say smart move would’ve been to legislate law while seats case was still pending in court
CHANGES to the choices law — putatively aimed at shutting the doors of congress on PTI’s ‘ independent’ lawgivers — are set to come the rearmost legal battlefield between the government, opposition and the bar.
But legal experts say the ramifications of this wrangling could indeed extend to and review the scheme of separation of powers between the council, superintendent and the bar, which in itself is quite a thorny issue.
On Thursday, sources in the Senate Secretariat said President Asif Ali Zardari had inked the bill confining independent campaigners from joining parties of their choice after the quested time period had expired.
This was the government’s alternate move to amend the choices Act 2017 after the Feb 8 pates — the first being an correction to appoint retired judges to election bars without the input of high court chief judges.
Indeed that matter is yet to be settled. originally passed as an constitution, the government gave the move legal cover in July after the correction was assailed in court.
Although the principal election manager and the Lahore High Court chief justice have held a meeting in this regard, the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court. As of now, utmost election bars are also not taking up cases, rather, are remonstrating the can down the road by issuing a new date in utmost( if not each) listed sounds.
Legislating on a sub judice matter
The rearmost piece of legislation, moved by a PML- N legislator and passed by both houses of congress amid demurrers from the opposition, does n’t contain important that is n’t formerly part of administrative convention.
The primary bone of contention is that it seeks to have retrospective effect from 2017 — the date of the passage of the original choices Act, under which the Feb 8 choices were held.
As per the fresh correction, campaigners can not change their party after joining one within three days of their palm being notified.
likewise, reserved seats can not be distributed to a party that did n’t win a single seat in the election.
The correction also says that campaigners should be considered independents if they do n’t file affirmations with the applicable returning officer( RO) about their cooperation with a particular political party, before seeking the allotment of a bean symbol.
Although congress is well within its rights to make changes to any law, the timing of these emendations — coming after the Supreme Court’s July 12 judgement in the reserved seats case — muddies the intent behind the passage of this particular correction.
As the government has been at pains to point out, a detailed order in the reserved seats case is still awaited. In addition, both the ECP and members of the ruling coalition( PML- N and PPP) have formerly moved review desires against the verdict.
This means that, technically, the matter is still sub judice.
Shutting door on PTI?
Kashif Ali Malik, a counsel well– clued in election laws, told Dawn that while congress is empowered to ordain, making retrospective legislation in a matter where the Supreme Court has formerly interpreted the law, is tantamount to ‘ defeating the judgement’.
In his opinion, the government would have been better served if it had announced the law while the reserved seats case was still pending before the SC. The fact that the law was legislated in the wake of the short order makes it egregious that it’s meant to target one particular political party — the PTI. thus, in Mr Malik’s view, the apex court has all the rights to look at the vires of the law.
Leading indigenous expert and PTI Senator Hamid Khan agrees that this was n’t the applicable time to amend the choices Act.
In his view, since the court had formerly interpreted the law, these emendations were obviously introduced to circumvent the judgement.
also, Mr Khan said, the emendations can not be given retrospective effect as the July 12 judgement deals with the rights of the PTI, and giving a law retrospective effect would deprive the party of its indigenous rights.