Delimitation process

2024 PLD 338 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 17 & 20Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionElection disputeDelimitation processInconvenience of votersScopePetitioners were aggrieved of delimitation scheme finalized by Election CommissionValidity

Office of Election Commission is creation of Constitution and its prime duty is to conduct elections in fair and transparent manner

One of the foundational steps to hold elections emerges from delimitation of constituencies which is undoubtedly within the domain of Election Commission

Before finalizing delimitation process, Election Commission has to ensure that every genuine objection is attended and dealt with properly

Objections of petitioners related to exclusion of a specific area (Patwar Circle) from one constituency and inclusion in other, which in their estimation would result into serious inconvenience to voters of the constituencies

Mere inconvenience of a segment of people could not be made basis for delimitation of constituencies

Suitability and proximity of an area to be part of a constituency was to be determined on the basis of various factors

It was not the job of High Court in constitutional jurisdiction to evaluate suitability or otherwise of delimitation of constituencies merely as per whims of a segment of society

Constitutional jurisdiction is always discretionary with the Court and person(s) approaching for such purpose has/have to establish negation of his/their vested rights

Constitutional mandate is not unbridled and High Court is precluded to exercise constitutional jurisdiction in an omnibus fashion

High Court declined to interfere in delimitation of constituencies by Election Commission

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2016 CLC 871 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10, 8 & 9Punjab Local Government Act (XVIII of 2013), Ss.8 & 9General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-AConstitution of Pakistan, Arts.10-A, 218, 219 & 222Delimitation processPrinciplesReports of Commission and list of constituenciesObjections against delimitation processRight to fair trialElection Commission, duty of

Petitioners, preferred objections against delimitation of their constituencies, which were rejected by Delimitation Officer

Contention raised by petitioner was that the delimitation process had been conducted in disregard of all prescribed laws, rules and instructions

Validity

Part III of Chapter II of Instructions issued by Election Commission prescribed responsibilities of Delimitation Authorities, and Item No.37 of said Instruction cast duty upon Delimitation Authorities to hold inquiry, summon witnesses and record evidence for purpose of deciding objections preferred before it

Delimitation Authority had not followed the said basic requirements while deciding objection petitions or representations of petitioners

Impugned orders of Delimitation Authority were in oblivion of mandatory provisions of law, and the same also lacked any lawful reasoning for acceptance or rejection of objections

Impugned orders also offended provisions of Art.10-A of Constitution

Any order passed by the Authority in exercise of its powers was expected to carry reasoning and be speaking order

Section 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 bound down even the Executive to assign reasoning and pass speaking order, while determining rights of parties

High Court, declaring impugned orders as illegal, unlawful, restored all objection petitions and directed the Delimitation Authority to re-adjudicate the same in accordance with the law and Instructions

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.