Rejection of nomination papers

2026 CLC 152 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.60(2) & 62Rejection of nomination papersCandidate declared proclaimed offenderCandidate claiming ignorance of registration of a criminal caseRelevanceSubsequent securing of pre-arrest bail after objections of the objectors, plea ofLegalityEffect on candidature

In case the candidate has been declared proclaimed offender after adopting proper procedure of law, he cannot claim he is not aware of any case pending against him

Moreover, securing pre-arrest bail in a case after objections of the objectors does not change his status of proclaimed offender.

2026 CLC 152 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.60(2)(b) & 63Rejection of nomination papersInclusion of candidate's name in 4th Sched. of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997EffectSubsequent freezing of moveable or immoveable propertyOpening of a dedicated account for election expensesRequirementFrozen bank account under 4th Sched.ConsequencesMandatory election expense account inoperativeEffect on candidatureInability to operate dedicated account constitutes a bar to candidatureConcealment of a criminal case in affidavit

Brief facts were that the appellant filed an appeal under S. 63 of the Elections Act, 2017 challenging the Returning Officer's order rejecting his nomination papers on grounds of concealment of facts

The record showed that an FIR existed against him; that he obtained pre-arrest bail after learning of the case; that his name was placed in the 4th Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and his CNIC and bank accounts were consequently frozen; that under S. 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, maintaining an active bank account for election expenses was mandatory, but due to the freezing order the appellant could not operate his account; and that he had also been declared a proclaimed offender in criminal proceedings which he did not disclose in his nomination papers

Pivotal question requiring determination in the present election appeal was as to "whether the Returning Officer rightly rejected the appellant's nomination papers on the basis of concealment of material facts, specifically the pending criminal cases; his status as a proclaimed offender; and his inclusion in the 4th Schedule which resulted in frozen bank accounts, and whether these circumstances legally disqualified him from contesting the election due to failure to meet mandatory requirements under the Elections Act, 2017"?

Held: Appellant's name had been included in the list of 4th Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, firstly, in the year 2018, secondly in 2021 when it was excluded, however, keeping in view appellant's activities his name had again been included in the said list in 2023

Consequently, according to the order passed against the appellant, movables or any other property owned or controlled wholly or partly, directly or indirectly stood frozen

According to S. 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017, opening of a dedicated account for the purpose of election expenses was essential for every candidate

Since, during the existence of aforesaid order, appellant's account remained frozen and he was unable to utilize the same for the purpose of election expenses, therefore, this fact alone was sufficient to preclude him from contesting the forthcoming elections

Moreover, a criminal case was pending against the appellant in which he was a proclaimed offender and same was not disclosed by him in his affidavit

Furthermore, it was revealed that appellant was also a proclaimed offender in another criminal case for the last many years in which admittedly the appellant had not surrendered before the court of law

Appellant had also concealed that case in his affidavit which amounted to concealment of facts, rendering the appellant ineligible to contest the elections

Impugned order passed by the returning officer being within four corners of law needed to intervention in appeal before the High Court

Present appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 MLD 541 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.62 & 63Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 63(1)(n)Qualification for membership of Parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora)Rejection of nomination papersBank defaulterScopeReturning officer rejected nomination papers of candidate on the ground that he was a loan defaulter of Bank

Contentions of candidate were that loan was obtained by a company of which he was a Director, but the company entered into compromise with the creditor and as such he had no further liability and that his ownership in the company was to only the extent of 1.43%

Validity

Candidate had a minor shareholding in the company with no controlling interest

Personal guarantee given by candidate did not bring him within the definition of a "defaulter"

Order of Returning Officer was set aside and the candidate was allowed to contest the elections.

2018 MLD 1618 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 62 & 63Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 62(1)(f)Qualification for membership of Parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora)Rejection of nomination papersScope

Nomination papers of candidate in question were rejected by Returning Officer on the basis that her nomination papers were rejected in previous Bye-elections

Election Tribunal had set aside the order of the Returning Officer

Validity

Appeal against the rejection of nomination papers of the candidate in previous Bye-elections was pending adjudication before the Supreme Court

No declaration as envisaged in Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution had come on surface

Person could not be prevented from his/ her Fundamental Right to contest the elections till the final outcome of his/her qualification

Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

2016 GBLR 218 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7, 11, 14(5), 99 & 108Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Arts.37(c), 60 & 61Bye-electionRejection of nomination papers

Petition for leave to appeal was directed against impugned order passed by Election Tribunal whereby the Tribunal set aside order passed by Returning Officer for rejection of the nomination papers of the candidate and he was declared as qualified candidate to contest the bye-election

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was disposed of with directions that: Election Commission was to announce fresh schedule of bye-election to fill in the vacant seat of the constituency; that Election Commission would issue notifications thereto strictly in terms of Ss.11, 14(5), 108 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and earlier notification, if any issued in violation of said provisions of law, would be considered illegal, void ab initio and without lawful authority; that notification No.ELC-1(1)/2014-GBLA dated 28-4-2016 appointing Mr. Justice Malik Haq Nawaz as Member Election Tribunal in place of Mr. Justice Yar Muhammad (being on leave), was set aside being illegal, void ab initio and without lawful authority and judgment passed by the Election Tribunal, was set aside; that stay order, by single Judge of Chief Court was set aside and Chief Court was directed to decide appeal on its merits within a period of 2 weeks; that Election Commission was directed to appoint Returning Officer in terms of S.7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and in case the contesting candidates would show any reservation, a Judicial Officer not below the rank of Additional District Judge be appointed with the consultation of the Chief Judge, Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court.

2016 CLC 786 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 36 (f)Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules (2013), R.52Disqualification for candidates as membersScrutiny of nomination papersRejection of nomination papersRegistration of FIR

Appellate Authority cancelled nomination papers of petitioner on ground of registration of FIR against him and his family members under S.496-A of Protection of Women Act, 2006 for abduction

Proceedings under Ss.87 & 88, Cr.P.C. had been initiated against petitioner and other accused before they joined the trial

Validity

Petitioner, having no criminal history, had filed his nomination form after complying with all codal formalities

No deficiency had been pointed out both before Returning Officer and the appellate authority, except registration of FIR about allegation of abduction; whereas, alleged abductee had categorically denied such allegations and registration of any such FIR

Petitioner and the others had already joined trial

High Court setting aside order of appellate authority, directed Returning Officer to accept nomination paper of petitioner and issue Form VII accordingly

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2014 CLC 94 ELECTION-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 14Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.63 & 62Rejection of nomination papersConcealment of assets

Appellant impugned order of Returning Officer whereby his nomination papers were rejected on the ground that appellant concealed his assets on his nomination papers and was therefore disqualified from being elected as a Member of the Provincial Assembly under Arts.63 & 62 of the Constitution

Validity

Factum of ownership of a private limited company and land had not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant, and the said private limited company still existed on the register of the SECP and was yet to be dissolved

Appellant was therefore required under law to disclose that he owned the said company even if it was not conducting any business

Land in question was transferred to the appellant on 19-8-2006, while the appellant's father died in the year 2006, therefore, the contention that the land had been bought by the appellant's father in the appellant's name could not be accepted

Appellant had therefore, not only misdeclared but had also concealed his assets and had thus made a false statement/declaration on oath and was as a result disqualified from being chosen or elected a Member of the Provincial Assembly

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2013 SCMR 1158 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 14(3)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(1)Rejection of nomination papers

Restraining a successful candidate from taking oath as member of National Assembly till decision of his appeal by the Supreme Court

Scope

Nomination papers of candidate (appellant) were rejected by Returning Officer

Appeal filed by candidate before Election Tribunal was dismissed

Constitutional petition filed by candidate against order of Election Tribunal was also dismissed by the High Court

Candidate filed civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, which was allowed and leave to appeal was granted and operation of orders of Returning Officer, Election Tribunal and High Court were suspended

Candidate contested the elections and was declared successful and a notification was also issued in his favour (by the Election Commission of Pakistan)

Validity

Result of the election was subject to the decision of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court, therefore, in the interest of justice Supreme Court restrained the candidate from taking oath of the office of the Member of National Assembly

Supreme Court observed that, no sooner the appeal was decided the law would take its own course.

2013 PLD 105 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 6, 62(1)(f) & 199Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976), S. 14High Treason (Punishment) Act (LXVIII of 1973), S.2Constitutional petitionRejection of nomination papersDisqualification for membership of Parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora) for lifeScopeUnconstitutional actionsSubversion of the ConstitutionViolation of human rightsImposing of Martial lawConducting of controlled and pre-planned electionsIllegal confinement of Judges of the superior judiciary and their familiesUnconstitutional appointment of Judges of superior judiciaryBlocking of electronic and print media

Nomination papers of candidate in question, who was a former President of Pakistan and also Chief of Army Staff, were accepted by the Returning Officer

Election Tribunal set aside order of Retuning Officer and rejected nomination papers of candidate on the basis that he imposed an Emergency in the country and also dismissed the entire superior judiciary through unconstitutional means

Plea of candidate that all his alleged unconstitutional measures had been validated by the Supreme Court followed by a further validation from the Parliament in the year 2002 through the 17th Amendment in the Constitution, therefore he could not be held to be a usurper

Validity

Candidate had toppled a duly elected government in a coup d'état and imposed an Emergency throughout the country, which was almost a Martial Law

All the elected institutions like Parliament, Provincial Assemblies, Federal Government and Provincial Governments (Cabinets) were dismissed, and the duly elected President was shown the door of exit

Candidate in question in a very controlled and pre-planned manner, held elections to the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies in the year 2002 and installed the Governments of his choice

Out of fear that he might be tried for high treason offence, candidate got validation for his unconstitutional actions through the 17th Amendment in the Constitution before allowing the newly elected government to start functioning

Candidate gave an undertaking to the Parliament (at that time) that he would put off his army uniform by the cut of date i.e. December, 2004, however he broke such promise and remained in uniform for years thereafter, hence, in view of the broken promises in quick succession at different stages, candidate could neither be held to be an "ameen" nor "sadiq"

Subsequently candidate apprehended his disqualification from the Supreme Court from contesting election for the post of President of Pakistan, therefore, in gross violation of the constitutional command, he again subverted and abrogated the Constitution in the year 2007 and imposed an Emergency in the country for the second time

Chief Justice of Pakistan, all the Judges of the Supreme Court and majority of the Judges of the High Courts were sacked and prevented from performing their constitutional duties and were put under house arrest along with their family members, which was a gross violation of fundamental human rights

Few judges, who collaborated with the dictator (candidate), were selected and elevated and a new Chief Justice of Pakistan was appointed in clear violation of the constitutional command

All the vacancies in the four High Courts were filled up by the dictator (candidate) with hand-picked Judges, who took oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO)

During struggle of lawyers and civil society for restoration of superior judiciary, many lawyers were butchered, killed, burnt alive and thousands of them were illegally arrested and detained in prisons

Candidate (the then dictator) in order to suppress the uprising of the nation fully choked the voice of the national media

Offices of media both print and electronic were put under locks and there was a complete blackout of news in the field

After resigning as President of Pakistan, candidate left the country and stayed abroad for many years

Subsequently upon coming back to the country he decided to contest for elections despite the fact that many criminal cases were pending against him in different courts, including high profile cases of murders, attempted murders, and high treason under Art.6(2) of the Constitution

Candidate was also charged in a case for butchering and burning alive pre-teen age orphan girls and boys in an operation in a mosque

All unconstitutional and illegal actions taken by the candidate at the time of imposing second Emergency in the country remained invalid because they were not validated by the Parliament (at that time)

Candidate was guilty of subverting the Constitution and completely demolished the superior judiciary, which was an important limb of the State

Subversion of the Constitution, as committed by candidate in question, was an act which was punishable under Art.6(2) of the Constitution, and under the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973 he was likely to earn the penalty of death

All actions taken by candidate at the time of imposing second Emergency in the country in the year 2007 and thereafter attracted un-condonable disqualification for him for all times to come because the quantum and magnitude of disqualification earned through his unconstitutional and illegal acts, was continuous, sustained and recurring and not for one time

Candidate had earned a life time disqualification for contesting election for Parliament, Provincial Assemblies, Senate or any public office in the country nor he was qualified and eligible to hold any other public office of any representative character

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

2013 CLC 1821 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 14(2)Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.63(1)(c) & 113Rejection of nomination papersDual citizenship

Nomination papers of the appellant for the Provincial Assembly were rejected on the ground that at the time of filing of nomination papers, the appellant was a citizen of the USA

Contention of the appellant was that he had surrendered his US citizenship before filing his nomination papers and produced a letter written by him addressed to the US Consulate as proof thereof

Validity

Contention of the appellant could not be accepted as the appellant had only moved an application for renouncing/ surrendering his foreign citizenship and the US Authorities were still to pass an order upon the appellant's application and the appellant had failed to show any response from the US Consulate

Appellant therefore, at the time of filing of his nomination papers and at the time of the scrutiny of said documents, still held the citizenship of the another country

No illegality existed in the impugned order and the candidature of the appellant was hit by Art.113 read with Art.63(1)(c) of the Constitution

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2013 CLC 1647 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 14Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.62 & 63Rejection of nomination papers

Nomination papers filed by the petitioner were rejected on the ground that he had quoted inconsistent educational qualifications in the nomination papers filed in the general election held in 2008

Contention of the petitioner was that his case was one of deficiency of equivalence of the educational qualification and not that of fake degrees

Validity

Question of genuineness of the degrees held by the petitioner and relied by him in the nomination papers submitted in the year 2008 was moot point in an appeal and it was held therein that in the case of petitioner the equivalence of qualification lacked and degrees held by the petitioner were not declared to be fake or forged and that judgment held the field and had not been set aside by any adjudication as constitutional petition filed to assail said judgment could not be adjudged upon and became infructuous as the Assemblies stood dissolved

Degrees held by the petitioner, in circumstances, could not be said to have been declared fake and forged

Order passed by the Returning Officer was declared illegal and was set aside.

2013 CLC 1623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 14Constitution of Pakistan, Art.63(1)(o)Rejection of nomination papers

Nomination papers filed by the petitioner were rejected on the ground that he was defaulter with regard to payment of water charges of water used from canal for irrigation purpose and the holdings of the petitioner were more than 50 acres of land and he was liable to be taxed

Contentions of the petitioner were that there was no outstanding amount against him and his landed property did not exceed the limit of the holdings which could be held liable to be taxed

Validity

Petitioner was not defaulter with regard to water charges on the day of filing of nomination papers and on the day of scrutiny and no disqualification could be attributed to the petitioner

Findings of the Returning Officer were erroneous and result of illegality

Impugned order was not sustainable and the same was set aside.

2013 CLC 1374 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 14Constitution of Pakistan, Art.63(1)(o)Rejection of nomination papers

Nomination papers filed by the petitioner were rejected on the ground that he was defaulter of water charges of the water used from canal for irrigation purpose

Contention of the petitioner was that his father owed water charges and that too had been paid by him before passing of impugned order

Validity

Counsel appearing on behalf of the objector had been unable to substantiate the allegation

Petitioner had sworn affidavit that he did not owe any dues to the Government and water rate or penalty payable were owed by the father of the petitioner

Only the default in payment of the Government dues including the water charges by the candidate himself might render candidate ineligible

Impugned order was declared illegal and was set aside.