CJP Bandial offers pay cut for judges so 'vital' elections can be funded.

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday proposed a pay cut for himself and other judges so that the 'vital task' of holding elections across the country could be funded and completed.

He passed these remarks as the apex court resumed hearing PTI's petition challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) decision to postpone general elections to the Punjab Assembly till October 8.

A five-member larger bench - comprising Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Mandokhail - is hearing the case.

In a surprise move on March 22, the ECP had put off the elections for more than five months citing the deteriorating security situation in the country and the unavailability of finances and security personnel. Subsequently, the PTI challenged the commission's order in the SC.

Ahead of today's hearing, the coalition parties - PML-N, PPP and JUI-F - submitted a request in the court to become respondents in the case.

During the proceedings, PTI lawyer Barrister Ali Zafar, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, PPP lawyer Farooq H. Naek and others were present.

Can the election date be extended, asks CJP

At the outset of the hearing today, CJP Bandial welcomed AGP Awan and said that the court looked forward to receiving assistance from him.

The top judge remarked that 'we don't want to stretch the matter', stating that the question in front of the court was simple: Can the election date be extended or not?

'If the ECP has the authority [to extend the date] then the matter will be over,' he said.

CJP Bandial noted that the AGP had raised the point to make political parties respondents in the case. 'Rule of law is essential for democracy and without rule of law, a democracy cannot function.

'If the political temperature stays so high, problems will increase,' the apex court judge added.

Here, PPP lawyer Farooq H. Naek said that there was 'anarchy and fascism' in the country today.

Meanwhile, the attorney general mentioned the dissenting notes of two SC judges.

On Monday, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Mandokhail cast doubt on the judgement handed down in the March 1 suo motu regarding elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, saying that the proceedings stood dismissed by a majority of 4-3, and contended that the CJP does not have the power to restructure benches without the consent of the respective judges.

Referring to this judgement, AGP Awan said that if the court's decision [on March 1] was passed by a four-three majority, then there was no order that was violated.

'If there was no court order, then the president could not give a date for elections,' he said, urging the bench to first take a decision on the March 1 verdict.

However, CJP Bandial said: 'The question here is not about the judgement but about the ECP's power.'

The AGP contended that the PTI petition was based on the ECP's violation of the SC orders.

'The members of the bench are sitting here to review the questions raised in the petition. You [AGP Awan] are relying on a technical point,' the top judge said, adding that the SC's jurisdiction was not limited to the petition.

Right now, he continued, the matter is not about giving the poll date but delaying it.

'Elections are necessary for democracy ... don't spoil the matter on technical grounds,' the CJP told Awan. 'The SC's March 1 order has already been implemented. Don't raise this matter or present it in court again.'

Justice Manokhail pointed out that 'the number of judges [who issued] the March 1 judgement is Supreme Court's internal matter'.

He then inquired whether holding elections within the stipulated time of 90 days was not a constitutional requirement. 'Can the ECP delay the date for polls?'

At that, the CJP thanked Justice Mandokhail for 'clearing the matter'.

'People across the country are standing in queues for subsidised wheat today ... it is the responsibility of the PTI and government to improve the situation in the country,' he said, stressing that it was important to respect all of the national institutions.

'But every institution has to work within its constitutional limits,' Barrister Zafar stated here to which the CJP said that the same was expected from the PTI leadership as well.

'PTI has to take the initiative first because it has approached the court,' the top judge said. 'There is violence and intolerance in the country today ... look at the economic situation ... people are waiting in long lines for subsidised wheat.

'Instead of quarrelling among each other, think of these people,' CJP Bandial urged.

For his part, Barrister Zafar said that the crises would escalate if the elections were delayed.

Who has authority to extend date for polls, inquires Justice Mandokhail

Meanwhile, Justice Aminuddin Khan inquired whether the election schedule could be further reduced from the mandated 90-day period to which Justice Ahsan responded that the ECP had the authority to adjust the election schedule within the 90-day period.

However, he said the ECP could not delay the polls beyond the specified period.

Here, Justice Mandokhail interjected that the 90-day period had already elapsed, and expressed his disappointment that the Constitution was not being taken seriously in the country.

'Elections in the country will be held anyway, but the question is who will extend the date [for polls] beyond 90 days,' he asked. 'There is another question that can the assemblies be dissolved on the whim of one man?'

For his part, Barrister Zafar argued that both the prime minister and chief minister were elected representatives to which Justice Mandokhail pointed out that the assembly could be dissolved if the prime minister's political party intended to bring a vote of no-confidence. Barrister Zafar agreed to this.

The judge then questioned whether the matter should not be debated in parliament. In response, the PTI's counsel stated that parliament could indeed debate the powers of the prime minister and chief minister.

At one point during the hearing, Justice Ahsan highlighted that the SC's March 1 decision had been successfully implemented. He recalled that the ECP had issued a schedule on the poll date proposed by the president.

Barrister Zafar also said that the ECP had adhered to the SC's order as far as elections in Punjab were concerned.

'But the question is does the ECP have the authority to alter the date given by the president? Can...