ARTICLE 218
218. Election Commission. (1) For the purpose of election to both Houses of Majlis-eShoora (Parliament), Provincial Assemblies and for election to such other public offices as may be specified by law, a permanent Election Commission shall be constituted in accordance with this Article.
(2) The Election Commission shall consist of—
(a) the Commissioner who shall be Chairman of the Commission; and
(b) four members, one from each Province, each of whom shall be a person who has been a judge of a High Court or has been a senior civil servant or is a technocrat and is not more than sixty-five years of age, to be appointed by the President in the manner provided for appointment of the Commissioner in clauses (2A) and (2B) of Article 213.
Explanation.—“senior civil servant” and “technocrat” shall have the same meaning as given in clause (2) of Article 213.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Election Commission to organize and conduct the election and to make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure that the election is conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law, and that corrupt practices are guarded against.
Time of Election and bye-election — Alteration in Election Programme — Scope — Petitioners assailed the order whereby the Election Commission, citing Article 218(3) of Constitution, abruptly withdrew the ongoing general election notification and schedule — Election Commission’s counsel emphasized the paramount duty of the Commission under Article 218(3) to conduct elections honestly and fairly, asserting that constitutional provisions, including those specifying election timelines (Article 224(2)), should yield to this duty — Validity — The constitutional duty to hold elections as required (honestly, justly, fairly) does not, and cannot, convert the duty into a power vis-à-vis other constitutional provisions — That would, constitutionally speaking, make the Commission master of all matters electoral, which is in effect what the Commission contends — Emphatically, that cannot be — On the constitutional plane, the Commission is not the master but rather the forum or organ that the Constitution has chosen to perform the task that lies at the heart of constitutional democracy — The holding of elections cannot be placed at the will, i.e., power (howsoever bonafidely expressed or exercised) of any particular agency or forum, and howsoever exalted its creation or position may be — Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 224 here relevant are couched in mandatory terms: each uses the word “shall” twice, first in relation to the period in which the elections are to be held and then the period in which the results are to be declared — These clauses are mandatory and binding — They tell us when, at the latest, the elections are to be held, and when, at the latest, the result is to be declared — Article 218(3) tells us how those elections are to be held — Both provisions impose constitutional duties — They are complementary — By fixing the time period(s) in Article 224, the Constitution binds everyone, including the Commission itself — The other duty, of holding the elections, is imposed on the Commission, and binds the executive branch to assist it in this regard — In their own terms both duties are mandatory — Commission cannot read one constitutional duty as conferring upon it the constitutional power to negate the other, and thereby convert what is mandatory into something that is only directory — It is this conflation of, and confusion between, “duty” and “power” on the constitutional plane that underlies the Commission’s case — Supreme Court declared the impugned order as unconstitutional and void, reinstating the original Election Programme with modifications due to the time lost. [2023 SCLR 74 = 2023 SCMR 2165 = 2023 SCP 211]