The recent allegations by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chairman Imran Khan against former chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry have renewed the controversy about the last year`s general elections. Since the elections on May 11 last year, Imran has been levelling allegations of rigging by officials in favour of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz. However, now he had directly charged the former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry of `match-fixing`. He was critical of the former chief justice addressing the returning officers prior to the polls and believed that his address was aimed at influencing the election process.

Last year, Imran had alleged that the judiciary had played `a shameful role` in the polls. However, after he was issued a contempt of court notice he claimed that he was referring to the role of returning officers,who were judicial officers, and not to the superior judiciary. In Aug 2013, a Supreme Court bench discharged the contempt of court notice in the light of his statement submitted to the court. Contrary to that statement given in the apex court, Imran has now again levelled serious allegations against Mr Chaudhry and also asked the present chief justice of Pakistan to take suo motu notice of the issue.

This is not the first time that a losing political party has been crying foul after the polls. Similar allegations were leveIIed by different political parties after successive general elections. Similarly, it was also not unprecedented that the judicial officers had performed as district returning officers (DROs) and returning officers (ROs). In the 2013 general elections, the district and sessions judges, additional district and sessions judges, senior civil judges and civiljudges performed as DROs and ROs across the country.

Whenever the judges perform on these key posts they drew criticism from losing candidates. Keeping in view the same reason the National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) had decided in 2009 that in future judicial officers would not perform the said duty. The committee had approved a National Judicial Policy in 2009. In Section 6 of Part A of the Policy related to `Independence of Judiciary`it was stated:`In future the judiciary would avoid its involvement in the conduct of elections, as it distracts the judicial officers from professional duty and complaints of corrupt practices tarnish the image of judiciary.

The policy further states: `The reputation of judiciary is at stake during election due to involvement of vested interests groups, etc in corrupt practices. On the other hand, it al-so adversely affects the judicial functions of the courts.` `Even otherwise, the Conduct of General Elections Order 2002, Representation of the People Act 1976 and Local Government Ordinance 2001 do not contain any provision which requires that the elections are to be held under the supervision of the judiciary. Therefore, in future, the judiciary should remain aloof from the process of election to focus on disposal of cases. However, in case of request from the Government, the NJPMC would decide the extent to which and the form of help to be extended to the government in the conduct of elections. The judiciary will continue to extend support and cooperation in adjudication of election-related disputes/complaints as provided under the law,`the policy stated.

The superior judiciary could not implement that decision and on the request of thethen chief election commissioner Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim the judicial officers were assigned the duties of DROs and ROs. The respective chief justices of the high court had claimed that they had tried to name competent and honest judicial officers for those duties and had also been keeping an eye on them.

Prior to the polls the former chief justice of Pakistan had addressed the DROs and ROs in the four provinces and had urged them to ensure the conduct of free and fair elections.

He had addressed an interactive session of the DROs and ROs in Peshawar on April 8, 2013, and had asked them to ensure that female voters were allowed to exercise their right to vote in the general elections.

The then Peshawar High Court chief justice Dost Mohammad Khan had also addressed the officers and stated that conducting general elections was a big chal-lenge for the judiciary and they would strive to hold it in a fair and transparent manner.

An additional district and sessions judge, who performed as returning officer of a National Assembly constituency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, said that they were under strict directives from the chief justice of Pakistan as well as the high court chief justice to act in a fair and impartial manner.The judge, who did not want to be named, said that in individual capacity some ROs might have supported a particular candidate but that did not mean that the superior judiciary or the DROs and ROs had acted in favour of a specific party.

The judge said that at no stage they had received any directives from the superior judiciary which amounted to favouring a particular candidate. He questioned why Imran was silent over his victory in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.