Written by 
ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court constitutional bench Monday dismissed a petition seeking an order that only candidates who secure more than 50 per cent of the votes in elections can be declared winners.
A seven-member bench, headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan conducted hearing in a number of cases.
The bench fined the petitioner Rs20,000 for filing a frivolous case. During the proceeding, Justice Mazhar inquired under which constitutional clause should a candidate be required to secure 50 per cent of the vote? Election results are determined by the votes cast, and nothing can be done about voters who choose not to participate.
Justice Ayesha asked the petitioner which of his fundamental rights has been violated and which constitutional articles are being breached. She stated that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to legislate new laws. Justice Mandokhail said that the Supreme Court has no objection if parliament makes law in this regard.
The petitioner argued that all fundamental rights are tied to the questions raised in his petition, adding the Parliament decides the course of people’s lives, to which Justice Amin responded that Parliament does not make such decisions.
Justice Hilali remarked that everyone has the right to vote but noted that people often watch television on polling day instead of voting. She stated that if voters fail to cast their votes, it reflects their own shortcomings.
Justice Mandokhail asked from the petitioner; “Did you cast your vote in the February 2024 election?” Muhammad Akram replied ‘no’. Upon that the senior judge of the Constitutional Bench remarked that such behaviour disrespects the Constitution.
The bench after hearing the arguments, imposed a fine of Rs20,000 on the petitioner for filing a baseless lawsuit.
The petitioner suggested that a fine of at least Rs 100 billion should be imposed to reduce the country’s debt, to which Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked, “You do not have the means to pay a fine of Rs100 billion.”
The bench adjourned the hearing of 1,178 petitions against Income Levy Tax Act 2013, as the Court was informed that 400 petitioners are not before the Court as they might not have received the notices.
During the hearing, FBR’s lawyer informed the court that notices had not been served to many parties in the case. The lawyer noted that the case challenges the rulings of both the Lahore and Karachi High Courts and that approximately 400 addresses might be incorrect.
The constitutional bench ordered that notices be published in newspapers to ensure service compliance. The FBR lawyer contended that the bench first has to decide about the maintainability of appeals. The court stated that it would address this issue in the next hearing.
The bench also heard a plea regarding making it mandatory for independent candidates to join political parties. The petitioner appeared before the bench via video link.
Justice Khan remarked that the permission granted to the petitioner to appear on court premises should suffice. The petitioner acknowledged that the matter had already been resolved, rendering their appeal ineffective.
Subsequently, the constitutional bench dismissed the petition on the grounds of ineffectiveness.