ISLAMABAD: Re-emphasising the principle that courts should not intervene in the proceedings of an election tribunal seized with an election dispute until it is completely terminated, the Supreme Court has come with an authoritative ruling suggesting that high courts should not entertain interim orders of the tribunals on post-election disputes.

“The courts have always been mindful of the need for election process to be completed expeditiously and without hindrance, including the trial of election petitions arising out of the election,” observed Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk in a 29-page judgment he authored.

The intervention by the courts in interlocutory order during the process of election would unduly delay the completion of the election, the judgment emphasised.

Through the judgment, the apex court decided a number of appeals and petitions moved before it by chief of Awami Muslim League (AML) Sheikh Rashid Ahmed from constituency NA-55 (Rawalpindi), PML-N candidate Raza Hayat Hiraj from NA-156 (Khanewal), PML-N candidate Mohammad Riaz Malik from NA-118 (Lahore), PPP candidate Khawaja Ghulam Rasool Koreja from NA-192 (Bahawalpur), PML-N candidate Malik Mohammad Afzal Khokhar from NA-128 (Lahore) and PTI candidate Javed Hashmi from NA-149 (Multan).

The runner-up from these constituencies, namely PML-N candidate Shakeel Awan from NA-55 (Rawalpindi), PPP candidate Syed Fakhar Imam from NA-156 (Khanewal), PTI candidate Hamid Zaman from NA-118 (Lahore), PML-N candidate Makhdoom Syed Ahmed Alam Anwar from NA-192 (Bahawalpur), PTI candidate Karamat Ali Khokhar from NA-128 (Lahore) and others have challenged respective election results before different election tribunals which in some of the cases through interim orders directed verification of votes in certain polling stations in various constituencies.

Subsequently the successful candidates challenged the interim orders of different tribunals before the respective high courts.

But these high courts rejected the petitions on the grounds that they did not have the jurisdiction to entertain interlocutory orders of the tribunals in view of the constitutional bar under Article 225 of the Constitution which only empowered the tribunals to determine controversies relating to the post-election litigations. These unsuccessful petitioners then approached the apex court.

Upholding the high court ruling the Supreme Court held that any appeal under the Representatives of Peoples Act, 1974, against the interim order of the election tribunal was not maintainable though a final order of the trial could be challenged.

But the high court can intervene by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction in an interlocutory order of the election tribunal if the order is patently illegal and if not overruled could leave the aggrieved party without remedy, the verdict explained.

The judgment, however, clarified that if the outcome of the election petition goes against a party which is also aggrieved of an interlocutory order passed during the trial, it is entitled to assail the very legality of the order in addition to challenging the main order.

Referring to Article 225 of the Constitution that bars challenging election disputes before any forum except the election tribunal, the verdict said the provision did not provide that the election dispute after its initial filing before the tribunal could then be challenged in other jurisdictions.

The exclusion of jurisdiction of other courts to try election matters extends to the entire length of the proceedings in the election petition before the tribunal, the verdict said.

Published in Dawn, December 19th, 2014