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]

— Time of Election and bye-election — Notification of Election Programme and its’ alteration — Scope — Petitioners assailed the order whereby the Election Commission, citing sections 57 and 58 of Elections Act, 2017, abruptly withdrew the ongoing general election notification and schedule — The counsel contended that the Commission, backed by statutory powers in sections 57, 58 and 8(c) of the Elections Act, 2017 had the authority to alter election dates if it deemed necessary to fulfill its constitutional duty — Validity — The power to alter the election program, governed by sections 57 and 58 of the Elections Act, 2017, is explicitly circumscribed and not open-ended — It can only be invoked if deemed “necessary for the purposes of the Act” and operates through two distinct limbs — The first empowers the Commission to make alterations for different stages of the election, allowing for changes in dates for various events while maintaining the overall program — The second limb allows the Commission to issue a completely new Election Programme, abandoning the earlier notified program — Crucially, the legal analysis highlights that sections 57 and 58 do not grant the Commission the authority to exceed the constitutionally stipulated periods in Article 224 — Permissible actions must occur within the parameters set by the Constitution itself, as legislative fiat cannot alter, deny, dilute, or circumvent constitutional commands — Even within these limits, once the election program is in operation, doubts arise regarding the Commission’s ability to entirely abandon it and issue a new program — The Commission’s impugned order, withdrawing the notification and Election Schedule without acting on either limb, fails to align with the statutory provisions — Notably, Section 8(c), relied upon in the order, is deemed irrelevant as it pertains to ongoing or imminent elections, and it does not authorize the complete abandonment of an election and the subsequent shifting of the poll date, as attempted by the impugned order — 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]