ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Nov 21, de-seating of MNA Adil Khan Bazai by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) for alleged floor-crossing. “For reasons to be recorded later, these appeals are allowed,” said a three-judge regular bench headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. Also consisting of Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, the three-judge bench had taken up a set of appeals by Mr Bazai against the ECP’s decision in response to the Nov 1, reference filed by the speaker National Assembly in terms of Article 63A of the Constitution on defection from the PML-N parliamentary party. “The impugned judgements passed by the Election Commission of Pakistan are set aside, and the declarations made by the party head of PML-N that the appellant had defected from the political party are not confirmed,” said the one-paragraph short order. “Accordingly, the appellant’s (Adil Bazai) membership of the National Assembly from seat NA-262 stands restored as an independent member, not as a member of the Parliamentary Party of PML(N),” the short order explained. The detailed reasons will follow soon. Earlier, on Dec 9, the regular bench had suspended the ECP’s verdict. In his reference, the speaker of the National Assembly had attached a declaration from the PML-N party head under Article 63A(1) in which it was held that Mr Bazai had joined the PML-N. Mr Bazai, according to the speaker’s reference, had contested Feb 8, 2024, elections from constituency NA-262, Quetta, as an independent candidate who later joined the PML-N by submitting an affidavit for joining the ruling party before the ECP. The reference had accused Adil Bazai of joining the opposition parliamentary party of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) in the National Assembly and thus violating the clear party directions of PML-N issued on Oct 19, 2024, besides abstaining from voting on the 26th Amendment. The reference had also alleged that the accused did not respond to the show cause notice issued by the PML-N parliamentary party. In its order, the ECP had held that Mr Bazai had admitted during the hearing that he had not given vote during the Finance Bill 2024 (Money Bill) from PML-N side while his status in the Commission and in the record of National Assembly was clearly shown him to be affiliated with the PML-N, it said. On Thursday, Justice Shah observed that though there was a photograph of taking oath in the National Assembly, it was not clear what document the petitioner had signed. Justice Malik questioned whether the ECP had conducted any inquiry to ascertain complete facts before dis-enfranchising the petitioner. Justice Abbasi also regretted that people were being de-seated when a letter from an elder came. This should not happen, Justice Abbasi observed, adding that this should not be taken lightly rather the procedure of de-franchising a member should be strict. During the hearing Justice Shah inquired whether any Additional Attorney General (AAG) was present in the courtroom. At this Additional Advocate General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa told the court that the AAG was present in the Constitution bench. Justice Shah, however, said that someone should also be sent in the regular bench. At this Justice Malik observed that if there were any redundant law officers, they should be deputed in the regular bench. Justice Malik also wondered about any document showing Adil Bazai had joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). Adil Bazai’s lawyer Sardar Taimur Aslam explained that the ECP initiated the proceedings against the petitioner on the very next day when the matter reached the Com­mission, adding that documents suggest his client had joined SIC on Feb 20. Justice Shah observed that the Constitution suggest that an independent member can join the party in three days. Justice Malik said no show cause notice was issued and then he was de-seated, adding that it seems as if the ECP was above every court in the country. Justice Abbasi observed said that if you look with an open eye, there is a clear difference between the signatures in his affidavit. Meanwhile, the ECP’s director general of law said that under Article 63A of the Constitution, the ECP had confirmed the declaration. But Justice Shah said the party head was not called, nor was the signature forensically conducted by the ECP before de-seating the member. The DG of Law explained that the Constitution gives ECP the authority to confirm the declaration. Justice Shah however cautioned that if the affidavit was not correct, the consequences may flow to the party head. Justice Shah also regretted as to why the ECP was not obeying the orders of courts, they were not even obeying the magistrate and the civil court, they were not obeying anyone, rather bulldozing everything. At least some semblance of autonomy should be respected, Justice Shah said.