P L D 2008 Supreme Court 22 (PLP)
Dr. ZAHOOR MEHDI — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, ISLMABAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2008 Supreme Court 22 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar, C.J., Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, M. Javed Buttar, Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan, Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan, Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir |
| Parties | Dr. ZAHOOR MEHDI — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, ISLMABAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2008 Supreme Court 22 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2008 Supreme Court 22 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar, C.J., Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, M. Javed Buttar, Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan, Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan, Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2008 Supreme Court 22 (PLP) (Dr. ZAHOOR MEHDI — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, ISLMABAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent No.1.
- Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Attorney General for Pakistan, Mst. Nahida Mehboob Ellahi, D.A.G. Sardar M. Ghazi, D.A.G., Raja Niaz Ahmed Rathore, D.A.G., Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddique, Advocate Supreme Court, Roy M. Nawaz Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Aslam Nagi, Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Abdur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali, Ch. Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2.
- Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court Wasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Ch. Advocate- on-Record for Respondent No.3.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 4-9.
Headnotes / Summary
Second Sched., para. 4 & Art.184(3)
Presidential Election Rules, 1988, R.5(3)(b)
Requirement of proposer and seconder for a candidate for presidential election could not be dispensed with
Rejection of nomination papers of a candidate having no proposer and seconder by the Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan was unexceptionable.
Art. 184(3) & Chapter 1, Part-II [Arts. 8-28]
Constitutional petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution before the Supreme Court
Petitions challenging matters relating to the election of the President do not involve question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part-II of the Constitution and as such are not maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C J.
Through the titled Constitutional Petition, petitioner Dr. Zahoor Mehdi, a candidate for election of President prays that the order of the Chief Election Commissioner dated 29-9-2007 whereby his nomination papers for election of President were rejected may be set aside and he may be held qualified to contest the Presidential election. He further prays that under the doctrine of necessity he may be given caretaker charge of the - Government so that he is able to ameliorate the national economy which objective he would achieve by saving 30% of running expenditure of the country and by boosting up 90% NGDP.
2. In support of the petition, the petitioner contended that Articles 41 and 62 of the Constitution, which deal with the qualifications for the President, do not lay down the requirement of proposer and seconder for a Presidential candidate, but is the requirement of sub-rules (3)(b) of rule 5 of the Presidential Election Rules, 1988, which is a subordinate legislation, therefore, absence of proposer and seconder does not constitute violation of the Constitution. When confronted with the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution (Election of President), he took the plea that the same are not mandatory in view of the word `may' used therein. To substantiate his plea, he submitted that the candidates for appointment to different posts in the public service offer themselves without any proposer and seconder and the same principle should apply vis-a-vis the election of President. Moreover, the petitioner is of the view that finding no suitable candidates for the election of President, he has offered himself as a candidate for that said office.
3. We have heard the petitioner at some length. The petitioner was unable to convince us as to how deviation from the constitutional as well as statutory provisions, referred to above, was permissible and how departure could be made from the law laid down in the case of M.P. Khan v. Muhammad Rafiq Tarar (1999 SCMR 90) where this Court did not dispense with the requirement of proposer and seconder. The order of the Chief Election Commissioner rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner is unexceptionable.
4. Even otherwise, the petition, ex facie, is not maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. This Court has already held in the case of Qazi Hussain Ahmed v. General Pervaiz Musharraf (Constitutional Petition No. 58 of 2007) (PLD 2008 SC 30) that the petitions challenging matters relating to the election of President do not involve question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part-II of the Constitution (Articles 8 to 28).
5. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. M.B.A./Z-9/S Petition dismissed.