Latest news with #ElectionAct
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Bandial had sought increase in number of SC judges: CB
ISLAMABAD: The constitutional bench Thursday revealed that in fact former Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial had asked for increasing the number of judges in the Supreme Court. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel divulged that while responding to the arguments of Hamid Khan that more judges were inducted in the Supreme Court (SC) so they be included in the constitutional bench for hearing of review petitions against the SC's judgment on reserved seats. Hamid Khan, representing the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), contended that was the reason the judges, who passed the majority judgment, including the author judge, were excluded from the bench. He also complained of not fixing review petitions against the majority judgment, which was delivered on July 12, 2024, before the enactment of 26th Constitutional Amendment. 8-member bench to hear pleas against SC bill Justice Mandokhel said; 'According to my information, request for increasing judges in Supreme Court was from former chief justice Umar Ata Bandial.' Justice Amin, explaining reason for delay in fixation of review petition, said because of two members of the Committee, set up under Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, the reviews were delayed. Justice Amin further said after the 12th July judgment, when review petitions were filed then former Chief Justice (Qazi Faez) called a Committee's meeting to decide about hearing of review petitions. However, two members [Justice Mansoor and Justice Munib] at that time said were on summer vacations. Hamid Khan then contended that the review petition should have been heard after a decision on 26th Constitutional Amendment. Justice Mandokhel responded that review petition was filed prior to petitions against the 26th Amendment. An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's YouTube channel. At the onset of the proceeding, Justice Mandokhail inquired from PTI lawyer; 'Don't you think 3-day, time-line given in Article 51 of the constitution, has been extended in 8-judge's verdict.' Salman Akram Raja, appearing on behalf of PTI, replied, 'no'. He submitted that the judgment actually allowed the independents to join a political party to that they belonged. He told that the judgment derived power from Section 66 of the Election Act, which states how a candidate becomes a member of a political party. Raja also contended that after 24th December 2023, the ECP refused to recognise PTI as a political party, and declined to issue list of PTI reserved seats for women. Justice Mandokhel reminded Raja that in the main case, he had accepted the status of PTI candidates as independents, and admitted that he would not have any objection if the reserved seats were given to the SIC. Raja recalled that during the proceeding of the main case, Justice Athar Minallah raised issue of complete justice and asked won't he has objection if reserved seats were given to the PTI. The counsel said that he had bowed to that offer, adding the 8-judge judgment declared that joining of SIC by independents is nonest. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that there is nothing on record that 41 candidates, out of 80, filed party affiliation certificate or mentioned PTI in their nomination papers. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar remarked that if 39 independents could mention in their nomination papers PTI, then why 41 candidates did not write PTI. He questioned whether they had the fear that if they would do that than their papers would be rejected. Justice Mandokhel observed had the 41 candidates also mentioned PTI in their nomination paper then maximum damage they could face was the rejection of the papers. Justice Muhammad Hashim Kakar questioned whether Section 94 is still part of Elections Act? Raja replied that he went to the Lahore High Court (LHC) against this provision, but the High Court dismissed it without passing any order, and remanded the matter to the ECP. Raja informed that he had challenged that order before the apex court, but the registrar's office returned his petition on 2nd February 2024. He told that the majority judgment declared the Explanation in Section 94 ultra vires of the constitution. Justice Mazhar inquired whether Section 94 was declared ultra vires in the short order or the judgment. Raja responded that in paras 4 and 5 of the majority judgment it was clarified why Section 94 was declared ultra vires. However, Justice Mazhar noted that there is no such declaration in the short order. He said once a thing is not considered in the short order then how come finding on it could be given in the detailed reasoning, adding this is a legal question, as it will come before the Court in future. The case was adjourned until Friday (June 27). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
The Province
18-06-2025
- Politics
- The Province
B.C. Conservative candidate who narrowly lost Surrey seat renews call for court to invalidate results
Honveer Randhawa, who lost by 22 votes, is asking for the B.C. Supreme Court to declare results of the Surrey-Guildford riding invalid because of alleged irregularities B.C. Conservative candidate for Surrey-Guildford Honveer Singh Randhawa. Photo by NICK PROCAYLO / PNG A B.C. Conservative candidate who narrowly lost in November's provincial election has renewed his request that the B.C. Supreme Court invalidate the results of the Surrey-Guildford riding and added more details of alleged voting irregularities. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Honveer Randhawa, who lost by 22 votes, has been fighting to have what he alleges are violations of the Election Act investigated by Elections B.C., including the mass mailing of ballots to one care home and by having one individual helping more than one resident to vote. And it also didn't provide translation to the non-speaking residents during voting, which also violated the Act, he alleges. In his amended petition, Randhawa alleges that 22 mail-in ballots were sent to a residence in the riding that is home to several individuals with mental illness. Argyll Lodge, a licensed care home with 25 beds, is home to residents who have 'limited cognitive and communicative abilities,' many of whom are 'unresponsive to even the simplest gesture,' according to the petition. Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The lawsuit alleges that Randhawa's campaign team weren't allowed to campaign at the house after they were told by workers that the residents were mentally ill and didn't vote. It alleges that employees at the lodge, through duress or fraudulent means got residents to vote and persuaded or compelled them to vote for or against particular candidates or parties. 'At no material time did the lodge voters intend to vote in the election and they would not have voted had they not been influenced, directly or indirectly, by the lodge employee(s), such that their decision to vote was not truly their own,' it said. The case also alleges Elections B.C. obstructed and concealed election results from Randhawa, who had 30 days to challenge the validity of the vote. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. It says Randhawa also discovered that a number of voters in his riding weren't residents of the riding. In January, he wrote to Elections B.C. asking it to investigate and then filed his original court case. Elections B.C. said it then suspended its investigation pending the outcome of court action, it says. And it says that in February, after Randhawa's lawyer advised Elections B.C. he would be seeking a judicial review, Elections B.C. provided an unfiled response to the petition in which 'it admitted that 22 mail-in ballots had come from the lodge' and that 'it had made a mistake' by mailing the ballots to the lodge because 'mail-in ballots cannot be ordered by one person on behalf of several people unless an election official is present.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'Elections B.C. knew that it had made a mistake during the election and that these mistakes would have given Randhawa a factual basis to invalidate the Surrey-Guildford riding results, but 'concealed the information' from him and the public. 'What else are they hiding?' asked Randhawa in an interview. The petition is asking the court to declare the seat vacant, which would force a byelection. 'Once an irregularity has been established, the onus is on the party supporting the election's validity to demonstrate that the irregularity did not materially affect the result of the election,' it said. Randhawa's lawyer, Sunny Uppal, said that because it's a matter of public interest, the case has been fast-tracked and a hearing of the petition has been scheduled for September. None of the allegations have been proven in court. Read More Vancouver Canucks Vancouver Canucks Sports Local News Vancouver Canucks
Vancouver Sun
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Vancouver Sun
B.C. Conservative candidate who narrowly lost Surrey seat renews call for court to invalidate results
A B.C. Conservative candidate who narrowly lost in November's provincial election has renewed his request that the B.C. Supreme Court invalidate the results of the Surrey-Guildford riding and added more details of alleged voting irregularities. Honveer Randhawa, who lost by 22 votes, has been fighting to have what he alleges are violations of the Election Act investigated by Elections B.C., including the mass mailing of ballots to one care home and by having one individual helping more than one resident to vote. And it also didn't provide translation to the non-speaking residents during voting, which also violated the Act, he alleges. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. In his amended petition, Randhawa alleges that 22 mail-in ballots were sent to a residence in the riding that is home to several individuals with mental illness. Argyll Lodge, a licensed care home with 25 beds, is home to residents who have 'limited cognitive and communicative abilities,' many of whom are 'unresponsive to even the simplest gesture,' according to the petition. The lawsuit alleges that Randhawa's campaign team weren't allowed to campaign at the house after they were told by workers that the residents were mentally ill and didn't vote. It alleges that employees at the lodge, through duress or fraudulent means got residents to vote and persuaded or compelled them to vote for or against particular candidates or parties. 'At no material time did the lodge voters intend to vote in the election and they would not have voted had they not been influenced, directly or indirectly, by the lodge employee(s), such that their decision to vote was not truly their own,' it said. The case also alleges Elections B.C. obstructed and concealed election results from Randhawa, who had 30 days to challenge the validity of the vote. It says Randhawa also discovered that a number of voters in his riding weren't residents of the riding. In January, he wrote to Elections B.C. asking it to investigate and then filed his original court case. Elections B.C. said it then suspended its investigation pending the outcome of court action, it says. And it says that in February, after Randhawa's lawyer advised Elections B.C. he would be seeking a judicial review, Elections B.C. provided an unfiled response to the petition in which 'it admitted that 22 mail-in ballots had come from the lodge' and that 'it had made a mistake' by mailing the ballots to the lodge because 'mail-in ballots cannot be ordered by one person on behalf of several people unless an election official is present.' 'Elections B.C. knew that it had made a mistake during the election and that these mistakes would have given Randhawa a factual basis to invalidate the Surrey-Guildford riding results, but 'concealed the information' from him and the public. 'What else are they hiding?' asked Randhawa in an interview. The petition is asking the court to declare the seat vacant, which would force a byelection. 'Once an irregularity has been established, the onus is on the party supporting the election's validity to demonstrate that the irregularity did not materially affect the result of the election,' it said. Randhawa's lawyer, Sunny Uppal, said that because it's a matter of public interest, the case has been fast-tracked and a hearing of the petition has been scheduled for September. None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Time of India
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
UDF leaders object, vehicle check sparks controversy
Kochi: If a blue suitcase stole the spotlight during the Palakkad bypoll, a vehicle inspection in Nilambur has now sparked fresh controversy. UDF MP Shafi Parambil and MLA Rahul Mamkootathil were travelling together when officials waved down their vehicle for inspection on Friday. A video of the inspection, in which the UDF leaders can be seen arguing with the officials, visibly irked over the checking, was widely shared on social media. In the video, Rahul questions the random checking of MPs' vehicles, while Shafi can be heard saying that the problem was not about checking MPs' vehicles but of only checking UDF lawmakers' vehicles. Rahul was also seen raising his voice and arguing with an official, accusing him of being biased. Speaking to the media on Saturday, Shafi said the intention was to insult and not to inspect. Answering questions on whether it was right to threaten the officials, Shafi said if the intention was inspection alone, then they did not wish to say anything, but that was not the case. He said they cooperated since the officials have the right to conduct inspections. Shafi said when he got out of the car, he was asked to open the boot of the car and take out the suitcases. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo But the officials didn't check the boxes when he took them out. He added that they objected to this as the officials must check and certify that nothing was found in the suitcases. Shafi said they raised a question as to whether they are inspecting vehicles of other political parties. He said that to their knowledge, it has not happened, which is why they felt suspicious about the checking. In the backdrop of the development, Malappuram district collector V R Vinod issued a statement urging public to cooperate with inspections. He said that media reports related to the officers appointed as part of the implementation of the Nilambur bypoll code of conduct have come to his attention and that the people should cooperate with the inspections to ensure free, fair and transparent election processes. Vinod said these are mandatory measures as per the Election Act and the guidelines issued by the Indian Election Commission. Static surveillance teams are setting up temporary check posts and conducting vehicle inspections in key places in the constituency. These teams are working 24 hours a day. Each static surveillance team has a gazetted officer, two other officers, a videographer and a civil police officer, he added. Responsibilities given to employees of static surveillance teams include comprehensive inspection of vehicles. The entire inspection process is captured in the video. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
Express Tribune
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
ECP submits reply in reserved seats case
The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has submitted its written statement to the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court hearing review petitions in the reserved seats case, stating that the PTI was never a party to the case before the SC. On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench upheld the ECP's December 22, 2023 order declaring the PTI's intra-party polls null and void. As a consequence of the SC verdict and its "misinterpretation" by the ECP, the PTI candidates had to contest the February 8, 2024 general elections as independents. Eighty such independent candidates reached the National Assembly and later joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) in an apparent bid to claim reserved seats for women and minorities. The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged in the Supreme Court. On July 12, 2024, a full bench of the apex court through a majority of 8 to 5 resurrected the PTI as a parliamentary party, noting that 39 of the lawmakers who had submitted certificates of their affiliation with the PTI along with their nomination papers were already PTI lawmakers. The SC ruled that the remaining 41 lawmakers who had not submitted the affiliation certificates at the time of nomination papers' submission could do that now within a period of 15 days. The government later filed review petitions against the ruling and now a CB is hearing the case. In its reply, the ECP said the majority of judges who endorsed the July 12 order did not take note of the clarifications issued on September 14 and October 18. "Before these clarifications, the case was never presented before the full 13-member bench. The majority decision violated Article 10-A and Article 4 of the Constitution." The ECP stated that the majority judgment incorrectly mentioned that the PTI was present before the court. It contended that PTI never requested the reserved seats, nor did it seek them on any forum. It said through the July 12 decision, the SIC was substituted in place of PTI. It said the list for reserved seats is submitted before polling in accordance with the election schedule. However, the PTI was ordered to submit the list for reserved seats after the elections, which is contrary to the law. Additionally, it said, 39 members were declared as PTI members contrary to the legal procedure. Relief under Article 187 was granted beyond the scope of the court's jurisdiction and the ECP was not heard when Section 94 of the Election Act was invalidated. Meanwhile, the PPP has also submitted additional statements to the Supreme Court, claiming that the court's July 12 decision went beyond the petition and the relief sought. The real issue was simply whether the SIC was entitled to reserved seats. The matter of awarding reserved seats to PTI was never under consideration. This same question - whether SIC was entitled to reserved seats - was posed before the ECP, the Peshawar High Court, and the SC, it said. The party contended that the SC issued a decision on reserved seats that was unrelated to the actual petitions before it. The court exceeded its jurisdiction and granted relief that had never been requested. The PTI and the SIC are two distinct political parties, it added.
