Full court or not? Legal experts weigh in on whether elections delay case should have SC's full might.

The case on the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) postponement of the elections in Punjab, being heard by the Supreme Court took an unexpected turn when two judges recused themselves from the bench in as many days, leading to calls from government officials for the chief justice to restore order.

Justice Aminuddin Khan recused himself from hearing the case on Thursday, and on Friday Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial reconstituted the bench with four of the remaining judges, namely Justices Ijazul Ahsan, Muneeb Akhtar, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and himself. However, the bench was rocked by yet another departure when Justice Mandokhail withdrew, saying he was a 'misfit' on the bench. Then it was up to the three judges: CJP Bandial, Justice Ahsan and Justice Akhtar to hear the case.

Government officials were swift to renew their demand for a full court. Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah said the current situation required the formation of a full court to hear the matter. Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said a full court is the 'only way out'.

But is it?

Dawn.com reached out to legal experts to weigh in on the issue.

'A constitutionally simple matter'

Barrister Asad Rahim Khan said that the formation of a full court in the poll delay case was not needed. 'If there is any complicated constitutional case, talks can be held for the formation of a full court, but not in this case,' he told DawnNewsTV.

He said it was already established (in the Constitution) that elections must be held within 90 days of the dissolution of an assembly. The barrister said the debate on the issue was being 'unnecessarily dragged on'.

'There is no legal standing for it. As far as the judge (Justice Mandokhail) is concerned who said he is a 'misfit' on the bench, it is his viewpoint and since he has recused himself from the bench, it is hoped that Pakistan may move towards stability and the judiciary takes a decision on it soon,' the legal expert said.

He underlined that it was the CJP's prerogative to form a bench as he deemed appropriate. 'No petitioner or any government lawyer can stop that.'

He recalled a decision of a five-member SC bench wherein the CJP was referred to as 'the master of the roster', which he said was enough to assess the authority of the top judge.

The barrister noted that the formation of a full court would cause no harm, but this case was neither one of first impression, nor of constitutional complexity, and that the core question -...