Election Petition

Argument of the appellant was that a separate affidavit duly attested by the Oath Commissioner had been filed, hence, substantial compliance had been made

Validity

Although the election petition was verified, it was signed by the counsel, not the petitioner

Moreover, the verification was not made on oath and lacked attestation by any of the authorities specified under S. 139, C.P.C.

Thus, the argument of appellant was misconceived

The principles governing the mandatory provisions of S.83 of the Elections Act, 2020, leave no room for deviation

Non-compliance with the provision(s) renders an election petition legally untenable

Supreme Court maintained the Election Tribunal's decisions to dismiss the election petition

Appeals was dismissed.

The verification was dated 18.01.2023, while the attestation bore the date 17.01.2023, which was logically and procedurally impossible, hence, the Election Tribunal had rightly dismissed the election petition

The principles governing the mandatory provisions of S. 83 of the Elections Act, 2020, leave no room for deviation

Non-compliance with the provision(s) renders an election petition legally untenable

Supreme Court maintained the Election Tribunal's decisions to dismiss the election petition

Appeals was dismissed.

Principles:- (i) Under S. 83(3) of the Elections Act, 2020, every election petition and every schedule or annexure to that petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Civil Procedure Code , 1908, for the verification of pleadings;(ii) The reference to the C.P.C. in the provisions of S.83(3) pertains to O. VI, R. 15, C.P.C. which mandates that every pleading must be verified on oath or solemn affirmation at its foot by the party;(iii) O. VI, R. 15, C.P.C., has to be further read in conjunction with S. 139, C.P.C., which specifies the authorities empowered to administer oaths; (iv) The provisions of S. 83 of Elections Act, 2020, are mandatory in nature and its non-compliance entails dismissal of election petition under S. 90; (v) An election petition must be signed by the petitioner, not his counsel; (vii) Verification must be attested by the authorities specified under S.139, C.P.C., including notary public; (viii) A separate affidavit cannot substitute the verification of the petition; (ix) Non-compliance with S.83 is an incurable defect.

The election petitions were signed by the counsel, not the petitioners. Furthermore, the verification was entirely absent

Election Tribunal, therefore, correctly dismissed these petitions due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law

Principles governing the mandatory provisions of S. 83 of the Elections Act, 2020, leave no room for deviation

Non-compliance with the provision(s) renders an election petition legally untenable

Supreme Court maintained the Election Tribunal's decisions to dismiss the election petition

Appeals was dismissed.

Applicant / returned candidate sought dismissal of petition on the ground that it was non-compliant with mandatory provisions of Ss.142(2)(a) & 144(2) of Elections Act, 2017 wherein complete list of witnesses had not been annexed

Validity

Term 'complete' must be construed in a practical and purposive manner

Petitioner provided names of all witnesses, private as well as official

Even if affidavits of some of the witnesses were missing or particulars in respect of few others contained clerical errors, overall compliance was substantial

Law did not prescribe automatic rejection of election petition for such lapses inasmuch as the petitioner could elect not to rely on any of the listed witnesses whether his affidavit was available or not

List of witnesses and their respective affidavits were duly annexed with the petition

Witnesses were individually named and their affidavits clearly disclosed nature and scope of their proposed deposition

Any minor typographic discrepancy, such as inconsistency in parentage of witnesses or CNICs, could not obstruct identification of witnesses or understanding of their proposed evidence

Official witnesses were named, along with clear reference to the polling stations where irregularities occurred in the main petition

This had constituted sufficient justification for the purposes of R.145 or Election Rules, 2017, which was procedural and had not been listed under S.145(1) of Elections Act, 2017 as one of the provisions, breach whereof would result in summary rejection of petition

Purpose of R.145 (1) of Elections Rules, 2017 was to control irrelevant summoning of official witnesses and not to bar the petition itself

Election Tribunal held that election petition was competently presented under S.142 of Elections Act, 2017 and list of witnesses substantially satisfied S.144(2)(a) of Elections Act, 2017

Reference to official witnesses fulfilled requirement of R.145 of Election Rules, 2017 and if any objection was to be pressed to the extent of summoning of official witnesses that could be decided when stage of summoning of said witnesses would reach

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant was aggrieved of dismissal of his election petition wherein election of respondent/returned candidate was assailed

Objection to election petition was appellant's failure to comply with verification procedures mandated by Order VI, Rule 15, C.P.C. which was a fundamental requirement as stipulated in section 144(4) of Elections Act, 2017

Validity

There were significant discrepancies in rubber stamp affixed by the Oath Commissioner regarding presence of appellant during the verification process

Appellant was not physically present at the time the verification occurred, primarily because he was not identified by any person nor by his Computerized National Identity Card

Stamp failed to provide clarity on the specific location and circumstances under which the oath was administered, thereby raising further questions about validity of proceedings

Phrase "declared on oath before me," inscribed in the stamp, lacked necessary specificity and was inherently ambiguous

Rubber stamp did not clarify what specific declaration was made under oath, nor did it confirm whether contents of verification were indeed presented as sworn testimony before Oath Commissioner

Such ambiguity fundamentally undermined assurance required for proper attestation of verification

Verification of election petition did not adhere to legal standards set forth by Supreme Court

Election Tribunal had thoroughly examined the election petition and reached a well-founded decision to reject the same

Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by Election Tribunal

Appeal was dismissed.

The requirements given in Ss. 142 to 144 of the Elections Act, 2017 for presentation of election petition, impleading parties to such petition and contents of the election petition to challenge election in any constituency are followed by S. 145(1) of the Act, 2017 which requires rejection of election petition if aforesaid provisions were not complied with, moreover, the Tribunal cannot wait till the culmination of the proceedings through regular trial and it is mandate of law to reject the plaint.

Detailed particulars with documentary evidence to be provided in order to substantiate incidences of corrupt practices, requirement of

The challenge in the present case was against the election held on 08.02.2024 in constituency PP-167 Lahore-XXIII

The election petitioner alleged that while consolidating the results, Forms-45 issued to polling agents were unlawfully discarded, corrupt practices occurred on polling day, and the results were manipulated with ulterior motives

On the other hand, the returned candidate had raised preliminary objections, contending that the election petition suffered from procedural defects, particularly improper verification and absence of a valid affidavit of service as required under S. 144 of the Elections Act, 2017

Held: It has been settled law that details of the person identifying the election petition must be mentioned in accordance with the provisions of law and the oath commissioner was bound to specify, at the foot of the affidavit, name of the person by whom the identification of the deponent was made and in the regard certificate had to be appended

Verification of an election petition was mandatory and a petition which lacked proper verification should be summarily dismissed by the tribunal, even if the respondent had not asked or prayed for its dismissal

Moreover, when an election petition was not verified in accordance with law, this could not be treated as curable defect particularly after lapse of period of limitation prescribed for filing of election petition

In the present case, the declaration given by the oath commissioner did not reveal if the election petitioner was personally known to him

The identification was not with reference to his Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC)

Moreover, full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practices were required to be given by the petitioner, including the details as to date and place of commission of such acts of illegal practices together with documentary evidence in support of such allegations

Election petition was deficient in many respects, therefore, the same was rejected under S. 145(1) of the Act.

Claim of the respondent (returned candidate) was that only few documents were sent along-with the election petition and even the election petition sent to him was dissimilar to the one which had been instituted before the Election Tribunal

Validity

Section 144(2)(e) of the Elections Act, 2017 provides that affidavit of service has to be to the effect that a copy of the petition along with copies of all annexures, including the list of witnesses, affidavits and documentary evidence, has to be sent to all the respondents by registered post or courier service

The affidavit of service relied upon to maintain the present election did not disclose if the affidavits of witnesses had been enclosed or sent to the respondents/ candidates

A rubber stamp affixed by the oath commissioner on said affidavit revealed significant discrepancies, which did not disclose if the election-petitioner was identified to him by any person or if the election-petitioner was personally known to him

Election petition was rejected, in circumstances.

The affidavits of witnesses annexed with the election petition showed that the same contained simple stamp of attestation by an Advocate/Oath Commissioner

All the affidavits and particularly their verification part were identical

Section 144(2)(a) of the Elections Act, 2017 requires appending complete list of witnesses and their statements on affidavits, along-with election petition

Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure-1908 requires that if any affidavit has to be tendered, the same is to be administered by any Court, Magistrate or any Officer who is appointed by the High Court in said behalf

High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Chapter No. 12, Volume No. IV, Rule No. 12 requires such Court, Magistrate or officer to certify at the foot of the affidavit regarding the fact of making such affidavit before him and to enter the date as well as subscribe his signature on such certificate

If the affidavits filed by a party are flawed in any way and are not verified on oath, then it will be considered that the same have not been attested on oath and accordingly, the election petition is liable to be, inter alia, dis-missed on said basis alone

In the present matter, an examination of the affidavits of witnesses reflected that there was no certificate available by oath commissioner to the effect that any of the witnesses had appeared before him and the oath was duly administered

There was no certificate of the oath commissioner regarding the fact if the oath commissioner personally knew the deponent

The attached affidavits of witnesses were deficient in many respects

When it showed that the affidavits relied upon were all identical and there was duplication of allegations, election petition was rendered entirely deficient by virtue of S.144 of the Elections Act, 2017

Even the election petition, where the verification by election-petitioner was present, the date when the verification was made was left blank and the place or the time were also not given therein

Election petition was rejected, in circumstances.

Returned candidate sought rejection of petition on the plea that verification made by petitioner was not in accordance with law

Plea raised by petitioner was that once notices had been issued to respondents, the Election Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to reject the petition summarily

Validity

Forum vested with judicial power must have inherent authority to nip unmeritorious litigation in the bud

Power of Election Tribunal to summarily reject petition cannot be considered extinguished merely upon issuance of notices

Certification on affidavit mirrored defects in verification of petition, which was neither in prescribed format nor it satisfied essential requirement of confirming due administration of oath in presence of Oath Commissioner

Such affidavit was non-compliant with statutory and procedural mandates

Election petition under S.145 (1) of Election Act, 2017, was liable to be rejected summarily

Election petition was rejected, in circumstances.

Section 29(2)(b) of Limitation Act, 1908 restricts the application of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 in the proceeding under Elections Act, 2017 being a special law

Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the First Schedule, to the Limitation Act, 1908, the provisions of S.3 of Limitation Act, 1908 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that Schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in S.4, Ss.9 to 18, and S.22 of Limitation Act, 1908 shall apply only in so far as and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; and the remaining provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 shall not apply.

If petitioner was not personally known to the oath commissioner concerned he could be identified by some other person including an advocate who would then be required to state that the election petitioner was personally known to him (identifier).

Brief facts of the case were that the petitioner, a contesting candidate in the general elections, filed an election petition under S.139 of the Elections Act, 2017, challenging the notification declaring respondent No.1 as the returned candidate on the grounds of corrupt and illegal practices during the election

The primary legal dispute pertained to the maintainability of the petition due to an alleged delay in filing as the same was submitted 4 days beyond the 45 days limitation provided under S.142 of the Elections Act, 2017

The petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of delay, arguing that the delay resulted from prior litigation

It was contended on behalf of the returned candidate that S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 did not apply to the proceedings under Elections Act, 2017 and that there were defects in verification and affidavits

Held: The petition was barred by four days and the time consumed before the wrong forum was petitioner's own choice and the same could not be condoned by invoking S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 which was not applicable to the present case by virtue of mandate of S.29(2)(b) of the Limitation Act, 1908

As far as issue of maintainability of the petition was concerned, the mere fact that the verification at the bottom of the petition was without stamp of the oath commissioner was fatal inasmuch as same did not fulfill the requirements of O. VI, R.15, C.P.C.

If petitioner was not personally known to the oath commissioner concerned he could be identified by some other person including an advocate who would then be required to state that the election petitioner was personally known to him (identifier), however, in the present case, the name of the identifier was not reflected

The ground forming part of the petition was verified without any stamp of the oath commissioner by appending defective affidavit

The election petition along with annexures was verified when the annexures were not even ready, meaning thereby, the petition and its annexures were not properly verified

Therefore, the petition was not maintainable on account of limitation and defective verification as well as affidavits appended therewith

The election petition, being not maintainable, was rejected, in circumstances.

Allegation of massive rigging and pressurizing voters to poll in favour of returned candidate by some influential person

Objections were raised by the respondents as to maintainability of the election petition for summary rejection thereof without resorting to regular trial

Validity

Instead of any verification at the bottom of election petition a certificate was given

Election petition was accompanied by an affidavit and the verification of the same did not reflect that which paragraph was verified on the basis of personal knowledge and which paragraph was verified on account of belief of the election-petitioner

Verification of affidavit was self-evident of the fact that the same was deficient in material respects including the requirement of identification of deponent with reference to his National Identification Card, rather identification was reflected by someone whose name was not even legible

Petitioner acknowledged before the Election Tribunal that the petitioner remained negligent in appending affidavit of service and in order to overcome this deficiency he stated that petition was filed by some other counsel, which was repelled by the Election Tribunal

Someone holding a constitutional post was alleged to have influenced the election in the given constituency, however, the petitioner had failed to give any particulars or even the name of that person

Affidavits of the witnesses were also silent as to this aspect and all the 14 affidavits were identical, as only the names of the witnesses were changed by repeating the same allegation

Election petition was rejected summarily, in circumstances.

In terms of S. 139, no election shall be called in question except by an election petition filed by a candidate for that election

For the trial of election petitions under the Elections Act, 2017, the Election Commission of Pakistan appoints as many Election Tribunals as may be necessary for swift disposal of election petitions

Election petition is to be presented in a manner provided under S. 142, and S. 144 lays down necessary pre- conditions for the election petition

Subsection (4) of S. 144 ordains that an election petition and its annexures shall be signed by the petitioner and the petition shall be verified in the manner laid down in the Civil Procedure Code for the verification of pleadings

Section 145 prescribes a procedure before the Election Tribunal

Subsection (1) of S. 145 contemplates if any provision of S. 142, 143 or 144 has not been complied with, the Election Tribunal shall summarily reject the election petition

Once the Election Tribunal reaches the conclusion that petition is not proceedable it cannot wait till the culmination of the proceedings through regular trial

Mandate of law is to nip the evil in the bud

Civil Procedure Code also bestows power upon the Civil Court to reject the plaint summarily in terms of O. VII, R. 11, if it suffers with the flaws mentioned in the said provision

Election Tribunal, thus, can proceed on the same pari materia and reject the election petition at any stage

Tribunal is even vested with the power to adopt any other procedure for the expeditious disposal depending upon the circumstances of the case

Provisions of the Elections Act, 2017, are unequivocal and clear to this extent that a petitioner while presenting the election petition is obliged to adhere the mandate of Ss. 142, 143 & 144 of the Elections Act, 2017

Non- compliance of any of the said provisions renders automatic rejection of the election petition.

Petitioner assigned the responsibility for institution as well as prosecution of the election petition to his designated attorney, who was the person who appeared to have not only presented the election petition but also verified contents as well as annexures thereof as required under section 144 (4) of the Elections Act, 2017 ('the 2017 Act')

While O. VI, Rr. 14 & 15, C.P.C., generously permitted the parties to sign pleadings or verification either personally or through their designated attorneys, S. 144(4) of the 2017 Act mandatorily restricted the petitioner to personally undertake the exercise, violation whereof, would inevitably result into summary rejection of the petition as was evident from the plain language of S. 148(1) of the 2017 Act

Petitioner had to follow the procedure expressly provided by the 2017 Act itself; admittedly he did not follow the same

Same anomaly was recurring in all the annexures of the petition without exception

Only at the end of the proceedings the petitioner personally appeared to face cross-examination on his detailed affidavit, which again was signed and submitted by the attorney

Case record did not suggest that attorney appeared before the Tribunal, however, it was manifestly clear that for the detailed affidavit of petitioner, oath was never administered upon him, as was evident from the description of deponent thereof being no other than the attorney

Examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination were inseparable parts of a witness's deposition and it was not open for the petitioner, to adopt contents of an affidavit sworn by a different deponent

Election petition was held to be not maintainable

Appeal was allowed.

Procedure for verifications was provided in the [Lahore] High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. IV, Chapt. XII wherein form of oath and affirmation thereof, to be administered to the witnesses, were aptly illustrated

Non-compliance with the said procedure would be fatal to the election petition.

Only contesting candidates could be made respondents in the election petition and any other party could not be joined as respondent unless otherwise directed by the Election Tribunal

Petitioner in the present petition had arrayed official respondents unnecessarily without permission from Election Tribunal

Present petition was not maintainable, in circumstances

Contention of petitioner was based upon presumption and assumption

No Presiding Officer of any polling station or any of the polling staff was produced before Election Tribunal to substantiate the allegations

Nothing was on record that any returned candidate obtained or procured the assistance of Presiding Officer to secure his election

No inference could be drawn in absence of any concrete evidence that missing ballot books were done in connivance or collusion with the returned candidate

Any careless or deliberate act on the part of any functionary of Election Commission was not enough to nullify the election results

Petitioner had levelled bald allegations against the respondent without any solid and concrete evidence

Names of persons accused of corrupt or illegal practices or illegal act and date and place of commission of such acts or practices were not available on record

Petitioner was bound to prove allegations of rigging and the use of corrupt and illegal practices which he had failed to prove the same

Allegations made in the election petition were not only vague, generalized, non-specific but also did not fulfil the requirements enough to declare the elections of returned candidate to be void

Mere bald allegations of rigging were not sufficient for verification of thumb impression from National Database and Registration Authority

Election petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Dismissal of petition was justified.

Oath Commissioner had affixed his stamp but he did not sign certificate at the end of election petition and other documents annexed therewith

Effect

Non-signing of such certificate did not amount to violation of requirements of O. VI, R. 15, C.P.C.

Requirements which were not expressly provided in O. VI, R.15, C.P.C. could not be read into it.

Provisions of R.61(3) of Islamabad Capital Territory (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2015 have provided as to how every election petition and every Schedule or Annexure to the petition has to be verified

Recourse to requirements of S.55(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1976 is not necessary, in circumstances.

Witnesses produced by the petitioner had specifically alleged that votes obtained by the petitioner were snatched, double stamped and spoiled

Large number of votes were declared invalid and excluded from the total count

Rejection of votes on widespread scale could not be ruled out of consideration and the assertions of witnesses of petitioner

Sufficient evidence had been produced by the petitioner with regard to commission of massive rigging in the elections by the supporters and agents of returned candidate with the connivance of polling staff

Respondent had failed to produce even a single evidence in support of his contention

Bald denial of returned candidate was not enough to discard the evidence produced by the petitioner

Bogus votes had been cast without appending fingerprints of the voters on the counterfoils of ballot papers

Report prepared by National Database and Registration Authority for verification of thumb impressions of voters on the counterfoils of ballot papers had established the allegations of casting bogus votes by means of impersonation

Neither the votes cast on invalid Computerized National Identity Card were acceptable nor mentioning of incomplete Identity Card number could be considered as human error

More than 45% of votes had not been compared by the National Database and Registration Authority which had created doubt with regard to fate of election

Election Commission was bound to provide indelible ink for fingers or thumbs and to ensure prescribed procedure of issuing ballot papers in the polling stations

Election Commission had failed to conduct free, fair and transparent election in the constituency

Provisions of Elections Act, 2017, had not been adhered at the time of polling which had paved the way of bogus voting

Election Commission had violated the law and such election could not be termed free, fair and transparent

Detection of huge quantity of bogus votes by National Database and Registration Authority had materially affected the result of election

Corrupt and illegal practices had occurred on the day of election in the present case

When law had prescribed a method for doing a thing in a particular manner then such provision of law should be followed and doing a thing in a manner other than provided manner would not be permitted under the law

Petitioner filed application for recounting of votes prior to commencement of consolidation proceedings but same had been rejected without any reason in an arbitrary manner

Returning Officer was biased while conducting elections in the constituency

If contravention or corrupt or illegal practice had been proved then Election Tribunal was required to declare the election of returned candidate void

Impugned notification whereby respondent was declared as returned candidate was set aside by the Election Tribunal, in circumstances

Election Commission was directed to hold fresh election in the constituency in accordance with law

Election petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner had levelled bald allegation against the respondent by seeking declaration of returned candidate to be void without any solid and concrete evidence

Polling Agents had not challenged a single vote at the time of polling

Petitioner had not approached the Election Commission against alleged corrupt practices rather he waited for election result

Allegations made in the election petition were not only vague, generalized and non-specific but also did not meet the requirements enough to declare the elections of returned candidate to be void

Returned candidate could not be penalized for the act or omission on the part of polling staff

Petitioner should have mentioned full particulars of corrupt practices in the election petition by specifying the particular person or persons responsible for such corrupt practices and proved the same

Nothing was on record that returned candidate had procured the assistance of Presiding Officer to secure his election in any manner

Charge of corrupt practices was to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt

Standard of proof required for establishing such charge was the same as was applicable to a criminal charge

Evidence produced by the petitioner was not of such standard either to declare the election of the entire constituency as void or to hold responsible the returned candidate for facing the penal consequences

Petitioner had failed to establish through cogent evidence that returned candidate had committed illegal and corrupt practices directly or through his polling agents or any of the polling staff

Election petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Statements of petitioner's witnesses were silent with regard to polling stations, time and persons involved in the alleged rigging

Nothing was on record to prove the case of illegal and corrupt practices warranting declaration of returned candidate to be declared as void

Petitioner was required to have given full particulars of incorrect declaration, illegal and corrupt practice

Benefit of doubt was to be extended to the party against whom allegations had been leveled

General allegations without supporting evidence could not be taken into consideration having not fulfilled the mandatory requirements of S.144 of Elections Act, 2017

Onus to prove allegations of rigging, corrupt and illegal practices was on the petitioner who had failed to shift such burden

Huge difference between number of votes secured by the petitioner and returned candidate was on record

Order for recounting or verification of thumb impression would be justified if prima facie evidence of rigging and casting of invalid ballots was available on record

Petitioner could not take benefit from the weakness of the case of defence

Election petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner had failed to prove as to how many polling stations were targeted to be rigged and in which manner, in whose presence to what extent and in what manner the rigging was committed

Presiding Officers and polling staff were deputed at all the polling stations and poll was carried out smoothly and peacefully

Petitioner had leveled general allegations against the returned candidate seeking his declaration to be void without any solid and concrete evidence

Nothing was on record as to particular act of illegal and corrupt practice committed by any particular person on behalf of returned candidate

General allegations had been leveled against the respondent having no material substance to prove the case of corrupt and illegal practice warranting declaration of returned candidate to be void

His Lordship observed that party assailing the validity of election must bring on record the corrupt practices committed and the full particulars of those practices should be given in the election petition by specifying the particular person or persons responsible for such corrupt practices

Onus to prove allegations of rigging, corrupt and illegal practices was on the petitioner while he had failed

Order for verification of thumb impression would be justified if there was prima facie evidence of rigging and casting of invalid ballots were available on record

No such evidence was available on record in the present case

Petitioner had failed to prove rigging or corrupt practices committed by the respondent or any of his authorized polling agent

Election petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner had failed to put forward particulars of corrupt and illegal practice or other illegal acts allegedly committed by the respondent and his supporters

Nothing was on record with regard to the persons who allegedly committed corrupt or illegal practices

Petitioner had relied on vague and general allegations of corrupt and illegal practices during the course of election

Election Tribunal had power to order recounting of ballot papers but said power should be exercised on the basis of some material prima facie establishing illegalities, corrupt practices and illegal acts during process of election

No one could claim recounting of votes as a matter of right

Party had to show that there had been improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes, corrupt practices and illegal acts

Inspection or recounting of ballot papers could not be granted to support vague pleas made in the election petition not supported by the material facts to fish out evidence to support such pleas

Petitioner had not made any written complaint with regard to rigging, corrupt and illegal practices committed by the returned candidate

Order for inspection/recounting of votes could not be passed on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to the returned candidate

Petitioner was to prove the factual controversy of corrupt and illegal practices alleged to have been committed during the election process but he had failed to do so

Election petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Object and conditions enumerated.

Narrow margin of votes between the returned candidate and petitioner did not per se give rise to a presumption that there was an irregularity or illegality in the counting of votes

Petitioner was required to mention material facts in the election petition and then to prove the same through cogent evidence

Facts in issue could be proved through oral as well as documentary evidence

Biometric verification of thumb impression from National Database and Registration Authority was also a kind of documentary evidence being modern device

Six hundred and twenty four votes received by the petitioner had not been shown by the Returning Officer in the Consolidated Statement which fact was sufficient to establish that irregularities had been committed in the counting of votes

Petitioner had made out a case for biometric verification of thumb impression of voters

Election Tribunal could order for opening of packets of counterfoils and certificates or the inspection of any counted ballot paper and could also refuse to issue such order if it did not have an impact on the result of election

Evidence could be given in any proceedings of existence or non-existence of fact in issue or other fact which was relevant

Court could allow production of any evidence that might become available through modern devices

Evidence of National Database and Registration Authority would provide more authentic and accurate account of what had transpired at the polling stations

Application for biometric verification of ballot papers was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner had failed to put forward particulars of corrupt and illegal practice or other illegal acts alleged to have been committed by the respondent and his supporters

Nothing was on record with regard to the persons who allegedly committed corrupt or illegal practices

Petitioner had relied on vague and general allegations of corrupt and illegal practices during the course of election

Election of returned candidate could not be declared to be void even if any corrupt or illegal practice had been committed if Election Tribunal was satisfied that it was not committed by or with the consent or connivance of that candidate or his election agents

Strong, convincing and cogent evidence was required to un-seat a returned candidate

Petitioner had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that respondent or any of his election agents had committed any corrupt or illegal practice

Allegation made by the petitioner being vague and non-specific did not meet the requirements of S.144 of Elections Act, 2017

Omission to declare an asset by an elected member could only be considered material when non-disclosure was meant to conceal a wrongdoing

Election petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Statements of petitioner's witnesses were silent with regard to polling stations, time and persons involved in the alleged rigging

Nothing was on record to prove a case of illegal and corrupt practices warranting declaration of returned candidate to be declared as void

Order for verification of thumb impression would be justified if prima facie evidence of rigging and casting of invalid ballots was available on record

No such evidence was available on record in the present case

Election petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

General allegations of illegal and corrupt practices of rigging in different polling stations had been leveled against the respondent

Written complaint by mentioning the name of any particular officer/official abetting the respondent in the alleged rigging had not been made

Particular act of illegal and corrupt practice was not assigned to any particular person

No material substance had been produced to prove the case of corrupt and illegal practices against the respondent

Benefit of doubt had to be extended to the party against whom allegations had been levelled

Petitioner was required to narrate full particulars of incorrect declaration, illegal and corrupt practices along with supporting evidence

General allegations without supporting evidence could not be taken into consideration having not fulfilled the mandatory requirements of S.144 (1)(a)(b) of Elections Act, 2017

Petitioner had failed to shift the burden of proof

Huge difference between the votes secured by the petitioner and respondent was on record

Order for recounting or verification of thumb impressions would be justified where there was prima facie evidence of rigging and casting of invalid ballots on the record

Petitioner had failed to establish the charge of illegal and corrupt practices

Election petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner had failed to put forward particulars of corrupt and illegal practices or other illegal acts allegedly committed by the respondent and his supporters

Nothing was on record with regard to the persons who allegedly committed corrupt or illegal practices

Petitioner had relied on vague and general allegations of corrupt and illegal practices during the course of election

Election process had started with the issuance of election programme and consisted of various links and stages in that behalf

If any of such links was challenged that would tantamount to challenging the said process of election

Stage of delimitation of constituencies had taken place prior to election and was altogether distinct from the election process announced in an election programme

Matter of delimitation of constituencies was not within the jurisdiction of Election Tribunal

Respondent had participated in the election and was elected

Election Tribunal could not sit in appeal to review the constituencies and process of delimitation carried out by the Election Commission

Petitioner had participated in the election without raising any objection and after losing the same he could not be allowed to challenge the election of respondent due to his conduct in view of principle of acquiescence

Election petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plea raised by respondent was that election petition was not maintainable as it lacked basic ingredients and was time barred

Validity

Petition presented before Election Tribunal was barred by time and no plausible reasons were mentioned by petitioner for delay so occasioned in presenting petition

Petitioner had also not filed an application for condonation of delay and legally petition was not maintainable and sustainable on such ground alone

Petitioner had directly filed petition before Election Tribunal and had failed to dispatch all required documents to the respondents

Petitioner had committed illegality and rendered election petition as not maintainable in view of S. 144(2) of Elections Act, 2017

Petitioner could not explain reasons for non-verification of petition along with its annexures on oath

Petitioner also could not satisfy Election Tribunal for not dispatching copies of petition and its annexures to the contesting respondents

Legal defects were apparent on face of record and further trial in matter was nothing but a futile exercise and wastage of precious time of Election Tribunal

If law required a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it had to be done accordingly otherwise it would not be in compliance with legislative intent

Election petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Affidavit of service of copies of petition; annexures and documentary evidence to the respondents under S. 144(2)(c), Elections Act, 2017, requirement of

Significance

Petitioner contested election and being dissatisfied with results assailed the same

Validity

Copy of notification whereby respondent was declared as returned candidate by Election Commission of Pakistan had not been appended with election petition

When there was a specific prayer for declaring election of returned candidate void, illegal and without any effect then annexing copy of notification was essential prerequisite

Election petition must contain affidavit of service under S. 144(2)(c) of Elections Act, 2017, to the effect that copy of petition along with copies of all annexures, including list of witnesses, affidavits and documentary evidence were sent to all respondents by registered post or courier service

Simple affidavit before Additional Registrar of High Court signed on the day of filing of petition did not fulfil requirements as laid down

Non-signing of annexures was also fatal for election petition and same could not be allowed to proceed

Constitutional petition was rejected in circumstances.

Constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked in exceptional cases where orders passed by the Election Tribunal were illegal

Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide qua the relevancy of the witness and might summon any witness it deemed essential

Election Tribunal had exercised discretion properly in the present matter

High Court in constitutional jurisdiction could not interfere unless exercise of such discretion suffered from any illegality, error of law or if not set aside then it would leave a party without any remedy

Discretion exercised by the Election Tribunal did not suffer from any illegality or misapplication of law

Petitioner might question the legality of interlocutory/interim order by filing an appeal against final order

No reason existed to exercise constitutional jurisdiction to set aside the interlocutory order passed by the Election Tribunal

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Requisite details of the Advocate who identified the petitioner/deponent to the Oath Commissioner including the advocate's CNIC and / or Bar Council/Association Identity Card had not been mentioned in the verification portion of the affidavit

Moreover, the Oath Commissioner had not signed the typed / printed certificate to the effect that the affidavit was made before him and that the Advocate's named therein identified the petitioner/deponent to him

Oath Commissioner had instead affixed his rubber stamp at the bottom of the page and signed it, however he had not mentioned the name of the identifier in the rubber stamp

Since the typed/printed certificate had not been signed by the Oath Commissioner, therefore, the rubber stamp signed by the Oath Commissioner had to be considered, which stamp lacked the name of the identifier

Affidavit of service had not been made in accordance with the law, therefore, the election petition, could not be said to have been filed after complying with the provisions of S.144(2)(c) of the Elections Act, 2017

Election petition was dismissed as being not maintainable.

Petitioner was returned candidate and was aggrieved of order passed by Election Tribunal accepting application for recounting of votes

Validity

Interlocutory order passed by Election Tribunal could not be questioned in Constitutional jurisdiction until same was patently illegal and for some reasons could not even be challenged in form of statutory remedy conferred upon parties aggrieved of order on conclusion or final disposal of election petition

If outcome of election petition went against a person/party who was also aggrieved of interlocutory order passed during proceedings, besides assailing main judgment, such person was entitled to assail very legality of interim order and consequences that had flown from it

If order was patently illegal and left a party without any remedy, then an interlocutory order could be challenged for exercising extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

High Court declared that petitioner was not remediless having a remedy for challenging order in question, after passing of final order in election petition by way of an appeal under S. 46 of Punjab Local Government Act, 2013

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Distinction existed between "material facts" and "full particulars/material particulars" used in S.144(1) of the Elections Act, 2017 and the same was important because different consequences may flow from deficiency of such facts or particulars in the pleadings

Failure to plead even a single material fact led to an incomplete cause of action and if the election petition was based solely on those allegations which were vague and general in nature or lacking in material facts, such petition was liable to be summarily rejected for want of cause of action

Petition which suffered from a deficiency of material particulars, Election Tribunal had discretion to allow the petitioner to supply the required particulars even after the expiry of limitation.

Non-compliance of mandatory requirements of S.144 of the Elections Act, 2017 and defective / incomplete or non-verification of election petition and annexure(s)

Effect

Respondent raised objection as to the maintainability of the election petition on ground that the same had not been verified in terms of S.144(4) of the Elections Act, 2017

Validity

Object of requiring verification of election petition was to fix the responsibility for the averments and allegations in the petition on the person signing verification and, at the same time, discouraging wild and irresponsible allegations unsupported by facts

Verification of contents of the election petition was required to be made on oath to be administered by the Oath Commissioner, who was bound to record and to endorse verification/attestation, that oath had been actually, physically and duly administered to petitioner

Perusal of the rubber stamp of the Oath Commissioner, in the present case, made it clear that the petitioner was not present at the time of verification before the Oath Commissioner because he was not identified with reference to his computerized national identity card and was not clear from the stamp as to at what place, the oath was practically and physically administered

Words "declared on oath before me" used in the stamp of Oath Commissioner were not sufficient being ambiguous as they did not indicate as to what was declared on oath or whether the contents of the verification were made on oath before the Oath Commissioner and said statement being patently ambiguous did not meet with the criterion for due attestation of verification

Non-verification of the election petition in accordance with S.144(4) of Elections Act, 2017 was fatal and such defect after the expiry of limitation could not be allowed to be rectified.

Election petition was rejected under S.145 of the Elections Act, 2017, accordingly.

Petitioner's application seeking permission to submit the list of witnesses was dismissed by Election Tribunal on the ground that it was not submitted within the stipulated time

Plea of petitioner was that he had filed such application which somehow went missing

Validity

Election Tribunal could require the parties to file, within 15 days of the date on which the case was fixed for evidence, a list of witnesses whom they wanted to produce in evidence or to produce documents by such witnesses alongwith a precise evidence which they were expected to give through affidavit

Election Tribunal could call such witnesses for the purpose of examination

Under O. XVI, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C., within seven days of framing of issues, the list of witnesses were to be produced and that if such list was not presented, the evidence could be produced with permission of the court after showing good cause to produce the said witness from the list

Missing application could have been located through a probe by the Election Tribunal on the basis of relevant statements of Tribunal's functionaries but the same was not done

Order passed by Election Tribunal was not sustainable, being violative of R. 65 of Punjab Local Governments (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 and O.XVI, R.1, C.P.C.

Application to produce the witnesses filed by the petitioner before the Election Tribunal was allowed with direction to the Tribunal to decide the matter within three months

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Difference between S.144(1)(a) of Elections Act, 2017 and O. VI, R. 2, C.P.C. is that latter requires 'concise statement of material facts' whereas words used in former provision are 'precise statement of material facts' which is more stringent than provisions under general law

Similarly, under O. VI, R. 4, C.P.C. material particulars are essential if any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence is pleaded

In other cases material particulars can be given if necessary.

Only change in two provisions (S. 144 Elections Act, 2017 and S.55 Representative of the People Act, 1976) is that requirement for verification of every schedule or annexures has been relaxed as same does not diminish importance of verification of petition as required under Representation of the People Act, 1976

Comparison of S. 144 of Elections Act, 2017 with S. 55 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 shows that former has imposed additional obligations of attaching statements of witnesses on affidavits and documentary evidence to support allegations of alleged corrupt and illegal practice with date and place

Such insertion has rendered requirement for contents of petition and its annexures more stringent than the repealed law.

Under provision of S.144(1)(b) of Elections Act, 2017 full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice or other allegedly committed illegal act, including names of persons who alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act as well as date, time and place of commission of such practice or act is mandatorily be specifically mentioned in the election petition.

Petitioner assailed election whereby respondent was notified as returned candidate for seat of Member Provincial Assembly

Petitioner raised allegations of corruption and corrupt practices against respondent but did not submit any specific particulars of allegations nor pleadings were verified in accordance with law

Validity

No specific attribution of illegal act and corrupt practice with exact day, date, time and place was jotted down and names of witnesses of such illegal act or corrupt practice were also not disclosed in petition and such was conspicuous non-compliance of law

Election petition must be verified on oath as prescribed in O. VI, R. 15, C.P.C. and any deviation to the same was to entail summary rejection of the petition under S. 145(1) of Elections Act, 2017

No such specific particulars were mentioned in election petition which was conspicuous non-compliance of provisions of Ss. 142, 143 and 144 of Elections Act, 2017, O. VI, R. 15, C.P.C. as well as provisions of O. XIX, Rr. 3, 11, 12, 14, 15 & 16 of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Volume. IV, Chapter 12

Election petition was not verified on oath by Oath Commissioner or by any other designated person in such behalf and such incurable flaws were fatal to the maintainability of election petition

High Court declined to proceed further in the petition as same was not maintainable for non-compliance of main provisions of law

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Oath was one of the important components of verification of election petitions and provided justification to bring result of an election under judicial scrutiny and control, so as to ensure that the true will of the people was reflected in the results; and, that only persons who were eligible and qualified under the Constitution obtain the representation

Other object for the verification of pleadings on oath was to fix responsibility for averments and allegations in an Election Petition on the person signing such verification and, at the same time, to discourage wild and irresponsible allegation(s)

Law ordained parties to approach Election Tribunal with genuine grievance on truthful facts and where false facts were pleaded on oath and false evidence was produced to mislead the Election Tribunal calling upon it to interfere with people's verdict of election, misconduct of the party was always viewed seriously by initiating criminal proceedings against it under P.P.C.

Omission of the word "oath" in attestation of an Oath Commissioner was to lead to the conclusion that verification of an election petition was not made on oath and was thus not in accordance with O.VI, R.15, C.P.C.

Petitioner before the Election Tribunal was required to give reference to paragraphs of the petition which he was verifying to be correct according to his knowledge and those paragraphs which were correct according to his belief and non-compliance of said requirements would render election petition as not valid.

Principles enumerated.

Election Tribunal had no option but to dismiss any proceedings instituted which were not in due compliance with the mandatory provisions of applicable law

Requirements prescribed for verification of pleadings and annexures were mandatory in nature

Impugned order had been passed in due consonance with the law

No infirmity and illegality had been pointed out in the impugned order

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Allegations of corrupt practices and illegal acts must be proved with such standard as was required for proving a charge in criminal case

Benefit of doubt arising out of the material placed before Election Tribunal must be extended to the returned candidate

Allegations made in the election petition as well as in affidavit-in-evidence were not supported by the facts on the face of record

Affidavits submitted before Election Tribunal did not bear any date of attestation and date when same were reduced into writing

Possibility of said affidavits being concocted and prepared at some unknown date could not be ruled out

None of the witnesses had mentioned the names of those persons who allegedly committed any illegal act or corrupt practice

Nothing was on record that any person was deprived of casting his vote or bogus votes were cast

Mere words of petitioner were not sufficient to unseat a returned candidate and disenfranchise the entire constituency

Election of returned candidate could not be declared void on the basis of sketchy, scanty and weak piece of evidence

Petitioner had failed to plead full particulars of illegal acts or corrupt practices nor he could prove whatever was alleged by him was done with the consent and connivance of returned candidate or his election agent

Civil servants and their spouses were required to apply by post to the Returning Officers of the concerned constituency on prescribed forms with envelopes addressed to them for supply of postal ballot papers

None of the witnesses contacted personally the concerned Returning Officer for issuance of postal ballot papers and all the applications for supply of the same were allegedly handed over to one and same person

Nothing was on record that any application for issuance of postal ballot paper was handed over or posted with envelops to the Returning Officer

Election of returned candidate was not to be declared void if any corrupt or illegal practice was not committed by or with the consent or connivance of said candidate or his election agent

Returned candidate had no concern with the issuance of postal ballot papers to the civil servants rather civil servants were required to approach the concerned Returning Officer for issuance of ballot papers within stipulated period in accordance with law and rules thereunder

Petitioner had failed to establish the allegation of corrupt and illegal acts as well as non-issuance of postal ballot papers

Election petition was dismissed, in circumstances.