Educational degree

2020 PLD 137 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 62(1)(f)Qualification for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Paliament)Candidate 'not honest'Scope and meaningAdmission having evidentiary valueScopeEducational degreeNomination papers, rejection of

Returning Officer and Appellate Tribunal (High Court) both found the petitioner-candidate to be ineligible to contest the elections on the basis that in the general elections of 2008, he had claimed to be a holder of degree from a religious institution, however, in the next general elections of 2013, the petitioner disclosed his educational qualification as Intermediate; that the petitioner's failure to disclose his degree from the religious institution was concealment and an admission of a false statement made in his nomination papers in the year 2008; and, that the petitioner was thereby guilty of being not "honest" and disqualified to contest the elections on the criteria laid down in Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution

Held, that Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution required that the disqualification of an election candidate must be founded on a declaration by a Court of law that such person was "not honest"

Any judicial declaration must necessarily be based on evidence, oral or documentary

Impugned judgments of the High Court and Appellate Tribunal did not refer to any positive evidence on the record to establish either that the degree from the religious institution claimed by the petitioner in his nomination papers in 2008 was bogus, forged or fake or that the petitioner referred to the same knowingly and deliberately as being equivalent to a graduate or postgraduate degree

Issue that such degree held by the petitioner was not equivalent to a graduate or postgraduate degree had been decided affirmatively by the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court solely on the basis that such fact was undisputed by the petitioner

Such omission did not constitute an admission in order to have evidentiary value

Admission should be unambiguous, unqualified and specific

Lack of honesty of the petitioner appeared to have been presumed by the courts below, whereas in the context of Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution, the element of dishonesty had to be present in candidate's conduct which could be deduced from his overt acts that reflected deliberate false statement, cheatful involvement in the use of unfair means and dishonesty

Presumption drawn by the courts below was conjectural and could not be made the ground for disqualifying the petitioner forever from contesting for or holding an office in the Constitutional Legislatures of the country

Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed and impugned judgments of courts below were set-aside.

2014 SCMR 98 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 62(1)(f)Qualification for Membership of ParliamentEducational degreeGenuineness of "O" and "A" level educational testimonials of elected representative had not been verified

Supreme Court, in order to do complete justice, directed Higher Education Commission to conduct such exercise, whereafter the Court would proceed further.