Overseas Pakistanis

2020 PLD 49 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(i), 3, 4 & 7Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 5(2), 23, 24 & 260Overseas PakistaniFraud in real estateFictitious sale deed

Complaint before Vice Chairperson of Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission ('the Commission') provided the petitioner/complainant was an overseas Pakistani as defined under S.2(i) of the Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission Act, 2014 ('the Act'), then being a citizen of Pakistan he had inalienable rights defined under Art. 23 & 24 of the Constitution i.e. right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property and its protection

Article 4 of the Constitution clearly provided that it was the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan, to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law and no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person was to be taken except in accordance with law

Said Article clearly protected the citizens of Pakistan defined under Art.260 of the Constitution whether inside or outside Pakistan (wherever they may be)

Further Art.5(2) of the Constitution stated that obedience to the Constitution and law was the inviolable obligation of every citizen wherever he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan

Petitioner through present constitutional petition had only sought direction against the Vice Chairman of the Commission to do what he was required by law to do

Section 7 of the Act empowered the Commissioner to transmit the complaint (of an overseas Pakistani) to a Government Agency

High Court directed that if the petitioner was an overseas Pakistani as defined under the Act, the Vice Chairperson shall refer the matter to the Commissioner of the Commission, who shall enquire/examine the complaint and the record in detail, and then after hearing both the parties, if a case was made out against those who provided the fictitious sale deed, the same shall be referred to the concerned Government Agency as per the Act/law, and grievance of petitioner shall be redressed within a period of one month

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2019 PLD 544 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 8 & 39Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 & Art. 168Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX, R. 8 & O. XLI, Rr. 9 & 17Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-AAppeal, restoration ofLimitationPrinciplesOverseas PakistaniRights

Plaintiff was overseas Pakistani who sought cancellation of sale deed on plea of fraud and forgery and recovery of suit property from respondents

Suit was dismissed by appellate court and appeal filed by plaintiff was dismissed due to non-prosecution in year 2009

Plaintiff sought restoration of his appeal in year 2012 but same was dismissed being barred by limitation

Validity

As a class, 'overseas Pakistanis' were generally vulnerable and exposed to becoming victims of fraud and deceit

Plaintiff reposed trust and confidence in professional counsel engaged by him after exercising due care and caution and in event of latter's negligence, there was no effective accountability

'Overseas Pakistanis' were exposed to harm like other classes such as widows, infirm, elderly litigants, etc.

Appeal was a valuable right and its dismissal in a mechanical manner for want of prosecution was contrary to settled principles for exercising discretion vested under the statute

Article 10-A, Constitution, guaranteed Fundamental Right of due process, and was to be considered by court before dismissing appeal for want of prosecution

Unlike dismissal of suit under O. IX, R. 8, C.P.C. dismissal of appeal under O.XLI, R.17(1), C.P.C. required application of mind and pursuant thereto exercise of discretion in accordance with settled principles of law which must be reflected in the order

Order of dismissal of suit was passed in a mechanical manner without taking all relevant matters into consideration

High Court declared order in question to be void and without lawful authority as it was not an order sustainable in law

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside orders in question and remanded case to Lower Appellate Court for decision afresh

Revision was allowed accordingly.

2018 PLD 788 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 94Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 17Overseas PakistanisEntitlement to vote in General and Local Bodies ElectionsOverseas Voting Solution (Internet Voting)Overseas Pakistanis had been conferred with the right to vote as per Art. 17 of the Constitution

Where the right of Overseas Pakistanis to vote already existed as per the law and was duly recognized, it must necessarily be given due effect

Supreme Court observed that prima facie the mechanism of Internet Voting was found to be safe, reliable and effective for being utilized in a pilot project

Supreme Court directed that the results of the bye-elections (for the year 2018) and the vote count of the votes cast by the Overseas Pakistanis through the Internet Voting mechanism shall be kept separately and also secret till the time that the Election Commission was satisfied about the technical efficacy, secrecy and security of the votes cast by Overseas Pakistanis through the Internet Voting system; that in case such determination, made on the basis of reasons, was in the negative and the Election Commission was not satisfied about the integrity, safety and reliability of the systems and the votes cast through the same, the Election Commission shall exclude the segregated votes cast by Overseas Pakistanis from the official result of the bye-elections

Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly.

2013 SCMR 461 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 51(2)(c)Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974), S.6Person holding dual citizenshipOverseas PakistanisRight to vote in general elections conducted in PakistanScope

Overseas Pakistani, whose name had been incorporated in the electoral rolls, could exercise his right of vote, as such right was recognized under the Constitution.