Journalists across Pakistan had mixed reactions to the Supreme Court’s Tuesday verdict in a suo motu case pertaining to the delay in Punjab polls.

The three-member bench hearing the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) petition challenging the delay in Punjab polls nullified the Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) decision, declaring it "unconstitutional".

The SC announced that general elections of the Punjab Assembly would be held on May 14.

The bench was headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and comprised Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ijazul Ahsan.

The court declared that the ECP's orders postponing the provincial assembly elections until October 8 was "illegal" and "unconstitutional". "The law does not permit the ECP to extend the election date," declared the court.

Soon after the verdict was announced, Pakistani journalists gave varying opinions on the issue.

Veteran journalist Hamid Mir stated that "now Justice Bandial should go ahead and follow the path of Justice Cornelius (a former influential chief justice) and move forward with the reference proceedings against one of his fellow judges, so it doesn't seem like this is a fight between pro-PTI and PDM judges".

The Express Tribune's Supreme Court correspondent Hasnaat Malik said that "once again [the] CJP-led section has proved 'supremacy' by making the other side's two judicial orders as ineffective".

He questioned if the bench could have done so "without including those judges in the bench".

Journalist Nasim Zehra said that the "SC decision on KPK [and] Punjab elections was expected", but a larger bench would have carried more political and moral weight.

She continued that the apex court had to reject the ECP's decision to delay elections because "bogus reasons" were given by the defence and finance ministries for delaying the election.

She wondered how Chief Election Commissioner Sikander Sultan Raja would respond to the SC’s order to annul his decision of delaying elections in K-P and Punjab.

Asma Shirazi said that poll dates for K-P had exceeded 90 days and questioned why the Constitution was silent.

Read Long walk to justice for journalists

Similarly, Saleem Safi said there was not one, but 'two Constitutions'.

"Separate orders for Punjab and separate orders for K-P. The full program for Punjab elections was given but the matter of K-P will be dealt with later," he commented, attaching images from the verdict of the hearing.

However, Mubashir Zaidi stated that "the Supreme Court in its decision said that the K-P governor was not represented in the court for the elections in KP".

He said that the apex court had mandated that "the matter will remain under hearing for the extent of KP", and the relevant forum should be consulted for the date of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa elections.

"Petitioners for elections in K-P can approach the court".

On the other hand, Abdul Qayyum Siddiqui said that "90 days mandated by the Constitution is applicable to Punjab, but perhaps some other Constitution applies to Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa". He added that the judgement was a "unanimous judgment of three Punjabi judges".

Munaize Jahangir highlighted that last year, CJP Bandial was applauded by the PML- N, PPP and condemned by the PTI.

She urged politicians to find a way to resolve political issues in parliament otherwise "they will weaken the institution further and push Pakistan into chaos".

Ahmad Noorani maintained that "the decision of the Supreme Court to conduct the elections of provincial assemblies according to the Constitution was commendable".

However, he claimed that "the elections will be difficult because the army and the army chief do not want this and contrary to the wishes of the people, they want to bring the PML-N to power by force".

Reporter Murtaza Ali Shah, reacting to the news said: "It’s ONE MAN SHOW".

"It’s about CJP Bandial and how he sees the constitution and law of Pakistan. ONE MAN SHOW."