SCMR 2024

2024 PLP 553 (SCMR)

UMAR ASLAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 159 of 2024, decided on 26th January, 2024,
Honorable Judges
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Athar Minallah, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2024 PLP 553 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Athar Minallah, JJ
Parties UMAR ASLAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
Primary Law Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 553 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 553 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Athar Minallah, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 553 (SCMR) (UMAR ASLAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)

Representation

  • Syed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court, Zahid Nawaz Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Rashid Hanif, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 12.1.2024, passed in Writ Petition No.2224 of 2024)

S. 62

Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 62(1)(d), (e), (f) & (g)

Elections for seat of National Assembly

Nomination papers

Nomination papers of petitioner (candidate) rejected by the High Court on the ground that he was a proclaimed offender in a criminal case

Validity

There was no provision either in the Constitution or in the Elections Act, 2017 that made a proclaimed offender disqualified from contesting the election, and the courts cannot on their own create such additional disqualification, without any backing of the law

Further, in this particular case, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in a criminal case, however, he obtained a protective bail in the case by surrendering himself to the court; he, therefore, could not be considered a proclaimed offender

Furthermore Article 62(1)(d), (e), (f) and (g) was not self-executory and served as guidelines for the voters in exercising their right to vote, hence even being a proclaimed offender did not attract the disqualification under the said provisions

Petition was converted into an appeal and the same was allowed; the impugned order of the High Court was set aside and the nomination paper of the petitioner for the seat of a Member of the National Assembly stood accepted with the direction to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to ensure that all the necessary steps to be taken in the electoral process were completed forthwith so that the petitioner could contest the election on the scheduled date for the seat in question, without fail. Hamza Rasheed Khan v. Election Appellate Tribunal and others Civil Appeal No. 982 of 2018 ref. Falak Sher, Consultant Law for ECP.

Judgment & Decree

SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 12.01.2024, passed by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby his nomination paper for seat of the National Assembly from NA-87, Khushab, was rejected on the ground that he is a proclaimed offender in a criminal case.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer ("RO") on the same ground on 30.12.2023, however, on appeal, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the RO and accepted the nomination paper of the petitioner. The objector-respondent challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal through a writ petition in the High Court, which vide order dated 12.01.2024 was allowed and the nomination paper of the petitioner stood rejected.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is pointed out that the same bench of the High Court vide order of the even date in another election case (W.P. 2383/2024) titled Tajammal Abbas v. Returning Officer and others discarded the ground of proclaimed offender and accepted the nomination paper of the candidate by holding that "[i]t is settled law that if a person is fugitive from law, he does not lose all his rights and mere abscondence of an accused is nowhere recognized ground to eliminate him to contest the election." Yet a diametrically opposite view was taken by the same bench of the High Court, in a case having similar facts, in the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent as well as the learned counsel for the ECP were asked to refer to any provision of law that disqualifies a proclaimed offender from contesting the elections but they were unable to refer to any provision from the Elections Act, 2017 or from the Constitution. Since there is no provision either in the Constitution or in the Elections Act that makes a proclaimed offender disqualified from contesting the election, the courts cannot on their own create such additional disqualification, without any backing of the law. Further, in this particular case, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in criminal case FIR No. 231/23 registered at Police Station, Khushab. However, he obtained a protective bail in the said case by surrendering himself to the court; he, therefore, cannot be considered a proclaimed offender. We may point out that Article 62(1)(d), (e), (f) and (g) has been recently declared by this Court, in Civil Appeal No. 982 of 2018 etc titled Hamza Rasheed Khan v. Election Appellate Tribunal and others, not to be self-executory and to serve as guidelines for the voters in exercising their right to vote, hence even being a proclaimed offender does not attract the disqualification under the said provisions.

5. In view of the above, this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the nomination paper of the petitioner for the seat of a Member of the National Assembly, NA-87, Khushab-I, stands accepted. The Election Commission of Pakistan shall ensure that all the necessary steps to be taken in the electoral process are completed forthwith so that the petitioner can contest the election on the scheduled date for the said seat, without fail. MWA/U-1/SC Appeal allowed.