Election Dispute

It was incumbent upon petitioner, within the scope of S.144 (1)(b) of Elections Act, 2017 to provide full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice or other illegal act alleged to have been committed including names of parties who were alleged to have committed such corrupt or illegal practice or illegal act and date and palace of commission of such practice or act

Instead of meeting such legal requirement by identifying voters whose details were allegedly altered in Pictorial Voter Lists, the petitioner threw excessively wider net and resorted to unfounded accusations against polling staff

Even witnesses produced by petitioner failed to name a single member of polling staff or any other individual who according to them had committed rigging during election process

Petitioner neither in his petition nor at any stage during the trial made any effort to get forensic analysis of thumb impression of Election Officials

In case petitioner intended to prove beyond reasonable that Form-45, he had been relying upon, bore original thumb impression of Election Officials, he could have filed specific application in such regard or should have asserted such fact in his petition but he did not do so

Election Tribunal declined to interfere in the election result, as there existed no ground for declaring election of respondent / returned candidate void

Election petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Another candidate resorted to the remedy for redressal of his grievance in respect of polling stations in his constituency relating to provincial constituency of petitioner / candidate as well

District Election Commissioner made recommendations to Provincial Election Commission regarding polling scheme but the same was not acceded to and was not incorporated in final election polling scheme issued under S.59 (6) of Elections Act, 2017

Petitioner / candidate only assailed draft polling scheme and did not call in question the final election polling scheme

Effect

Petitioner / candidate failed to show that exceptional circumstances existed in order to alter the scheme of polling stations in terms of S.59 (8) of Elections Act, 2017, particularly when barely 14 days were left in the polling of General Elections of 2024

High Court declined to issue any direction to Election Commission to make any alterations in final election polling scheme

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed election result of respondent/ returned candidate but Election Tribunal dismissed his election petition

Validity

Polling agents of appellant were present at all polling stations, including three polling stations in question

There was no complaint either by Presiding Officers or by any other responsible officer

Election process in the constituency took place in a congenial atmosphere and continued peacefully uptill the allotted time of 5 pm

Supreme Court declined to interfere in election result as the petitioner failed to prove massive rigging, corrupt and illegal practices with credible and convincing grounds

Supreme Court maintained judgment passed by Election Tribunal, which had dealt with the issue in an elaborate and articulate manner

Appeal was dismissed.

It is mandatory requirement to file statements of witnesses on affidavits, along with election petition, otherwise the petition is considered deficient

As per section 145 (1) of Elections Act, 2017, if provisions of sections 142, 143 and 144 of Elections Act, 2017 have not been complied with, then Election Tribunal has to summarily reject such election petition.

Notification of appellant was set aside by Election Tribunal and respondent was declared as returned candidate after accepting his election petition

Validity

Documents and evidence produced by respondent fell under the category of exhibited documents, as those were tendered and produced as evidence in Election Tribunal

Document so produced were duly admitted by Election Tribunal as evidence without any objection and had become part of judicial record

Election Tribunal, after detailed scrutiny, pointed out substantial discrepancies which were result of manipulation and tampering in Form 45 by the appellant with the connivance of Returning Officer and their staff which resulted in increase of votes in favour of appellant

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Election Tribunal as there was no illegality or procedural defect

Appeal was dismissed.

Petitioner was returned candidate in General Elections but Election Tribunal allowed election petition filed by respondent

Validity

It was mandatory requirement to file statements of witnesses on affidavits, along with election petition, otherwise the petition would be considered deficient

As per S.145(1) of Elections Act, 2017, if provisions of Ss. 142, 143 & 144 of Elections Act, 2017 were not complied with, then Election Tribunal was to summarily reject such election petition

Original affidavits were not produced rather only "marked" or "identified affidavits" were produced which could not be considered as fulfilment of mandatory requirement provided under law

In case of non-compliance of any mandatory requirement, it was the person presenting such documents, who had to face the brunt of non-compliance

Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Election Tribunal

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

A case before the Supreme Court involving an election dispute cannot be treated as an ordinary civil case and the judicial inquiry into such a case cannot be limited to the pleadings of the parties.

Petitioner assaild disqualification of respondent by Chief Court from membership of Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly for remaining period of term of Assembly on account of his name placed in Fourth Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Validity

Disqualifying respondent from the seat of Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly for period of remaining term of Legislative Assembly did not comply with mandatory provision of S.232(2) of Elections Act, 2017 [as amended vide Elections (Amendment) Act, 2023]

Surepme Appellate Court set aside observation of Chief Court pertaining to disqualification of respondent from the seat of Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly for remaining term of Legislative Assembly, as period of disqualification of respondent was for five years as per spirit of S.232(2) of Elections Act, 2017 [as amended vide Elections (Amendment) Act, 2023]

Mere placing of name of respondent in Fourth Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could not be equated with conviction mentioned in Art. 63(1)(g) and (h) of Constitution of Pakistan

Conviction was either an imprisonment or fine which was imposed after framing of charge, recording of evidence of parties and also recording stance of accused in his defence

Order passed under S. 11-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could not be equated with conviction

On mere basis of inclusion of name of petitioner in Fourth Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it could not be held that he had worked against integrity of country or ideology of Pakistan

This was no ground for his disqualification under S.231 of Elections Act, 2017

Supreme Appellate Court set aside observation of Chief Court, as no act of petitioner had come within the ambit of corrupt practices

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

On a dispute over postal ballots, Election Tribunal allowed election petition filed by respondent and declared appellant unsuccessful and respondent was declared returned candidate

Election Tribunal in its judgment did not give issue-wise findings on all issues raised by parties

Validity

Election Tribunal failed to deliver judgment as was required under the law

Election Tribunal was to attend to points raised and record its findings with reasons on all questions raised by it

Judgment in question had to reflect judicial application of mind to material issues involved

Each and every material fact was not duly considered and objections were not repelled by recording cogent reasons and considering entire evidence on record

Respondent in his election petition took a specific stance that Returning Officer during process of issuing and receipt of postal ballot papers and final count violated provisions of Ss. 93 & 94 of Elections Act, 2017

Material / legal issues were framed by Election Tribunal but neither material witness (Returning Officer) was produced and examined nor any request was made for calling him as Court witness in order to substantiate allegations

Election Tribunal while deciding matter of postal ballot papers did not redress genuine grievance / joint request of parties for forensic verification of postal ballot papers in a legal and proper manner

Supreme Appellate Court set aside judgment in question and remanded the matter to Election Tribunal for decision afresh

Supreme Appellate Court directed Election Commission to restore earlier notification in favour of appellant whereby he was declared as returned candidate

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Contention of authorities was that there was perilous law and order situation that could lead to sabotaging the election process or could influence voters or put their lives in danger, therefore, polling stations in question were shifted and relocated accordingly

Validity

Such shifting and relocation of polling stations is prerogative of Returning Officers and District Returning Officers under the supervision of Election Commission of Pakistan, which is duty bound to hold fair and free election as guaranteed under Art. 218(3) of the Constitution as well as Elections Act, 2017 and Rules framed thereunder

Petitioners/candidates failed to resort to the remedy stipulated under S. 8(b) and (c) of Elections Act, 2017, before Election Commission of Pakistan

High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter as factual controversies were involved regarding distance in between polling stations, and it required thorough probe and evidence

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

After delimitation process, constituencies were clearly defined, and lists of registered voters/electoral rolls for all constituencies were available in black and white

Due diligence by any man of prudence would enable such error to be avoided which even otherwise could be well pre-empted by filing up to five nomination papers with different proposers and seconders in case of any ambiguity and this was not so done by appellant/candidate

Election Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in order passed by Returning Officer, which was unexceptionable

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant's/ candidate's nomination papers were rejected as he in his nomination papers did not specify particulars of bank account opened for purposes of documenting election expenses

Validity

Certified copy of account statement was handed over to Returning Officer while photocopy was retained on the file of Election Tribunal

Primary basis of opening such account as given in S. 134 of Elections Act, 2017, was to account for election expenses as certain ceiling of expenses had to be maintained by candidates in conducting their campaign and making expenses related to the elections

From account statement it was evident that account had already been dedicated, therefore, mere non-mentioning in the form was a deficiency which could have been rectified by entering detail of the account in relevant column by Returning Officer and appellant could be given an opportunity which had not been done

Order of Returning Officer was legally untenable and was set aside, resultantly nomination papers were accepted

High Court directed the concerned Returning Officer to reflect name of appellant/candidate in revised list of validly nominated candidates in discharge of mandate of S. 64(3) of Elections Act, 2017

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Returning Officer rejected nomination papers of appellant/candidate as he had been convicted for commission of a criminal offence

Validity

There was no order of any court of competent jurisdiction regarding suspension of appellant/candidate's conviction

Suspension of sentence under S. 426, Cr.P.C. and suspension of conviction were poles apart

Conviction attained finality upon determination of guilt by Court of competent jurisdiction

During pendency of appeal, the Appellate Court, pursuant to S. 426, Cr.P.C., suspended execution of appellant/ candidate's sentence

Suspension pertained solely to the sentence and not the conviction, which remained operative until set aside by higher Appellate Courts

Mere pendency of appeal did not automatically nullify conviction

Appellate Court under S. 426, Cr.P.C., was not empowered to suspend conviction rather, it was a discretionary measure extended to accused

Suspension of sentence did not imply expungement of underlying conviction

Suspension of sentence imposed on appellant/candidatedid not affect the completed conviction, which had arisen upon determination of guilt by a Court of competent jurisdiction and that conviction held the field

Election Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in the order passed by Returning Officer as the same was speaking, well-reasoned and neither illegal nor without lawful authority

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plea raised by petitioner was that in nomination papers respondent / candidate did not declare certain properties owned by him through inheritance and land owned by his wife as well as weapons owned by him were also not disclosed

Validity

It was duty of Returning Officer to scrutinize nomination papers in the best interest of justice and to uphold fundamental rights of individual to contest elections

Instead of rejecting nomination papers, Returning Officer could direct respondent / candidate to mention the same in statement of assets

Returning Officer, in view of second proviso to S. 62(9) of Elections Act, 2017, should not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which was not of a substantial nature and may allow such defect to be remedied

There was no column in election form where a candidate could give details of his weapons but the value of weapons were duly disclosed / mentioned in statement of assets

Respondent / candidate could contest election as independent candidate or to participate with certificate of a party as candidate of such party, as there was no bar

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Election Tribunal accepting nomination papers of respondent / candidate

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / returned candidate was aggrieved of order passed by Election Commission to recount votes after consolidation of result

Validity

Consolidation of result took place prior to decision on application for recounting of votes and thereafter petitioner was notified as returned candidate

Election Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain second application of respondent let alone pass an order thereon for recounting of votes

Respondent / candidate, after consolidation of election result had option of filing an election petition in which proceedings ballots could be recounted

After consolidation of election result Election Commission had become functus officio in relation to any power under S.95 (6) of Elections, Act, 2017

High Court set aside order passed by Election Commission as the same was passed without lawful authority and was of no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / objector assailed nomination papers of respondent / candidate on the plea that he made false declaration by not disclosing weapons in his ownership and that his company was a bank defaulter

Validity

Non-disclosure of licensed weapon of both prohibited as well as non-prohibited bores was not an omission of substantial nature as official record duly certified existence of such fact

Furthermore a settlement agreement was reached in High Court whereby date of discharge of liability of bank was extended to March 2025

Discrepancies in land holding and income could not be ascertained with expenditure in summary proceedings and could be agitated in post-election scenario

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Election Tribunal accepting nomination papers of respondent

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / candidate was aggrieved of polling results declared by Election Commission, wherein respondent was declared as returned candidate

Validity

Contesting parties had taken divergent stands in respect of associating petitioner, a candidate, in consolidation process

Whether Form 47 was manipulated or not whether consolidation of results in Form 47 was made in absence of petitioner or not; and whether or not receiving / issuing notice to petitioner was prior to the preparation of Form 47, were all disputed questions of facts and the same could not be resolved in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Petitioner could file representation under Ss. 8, 9, 15 & 95 of Elections Act, 2017, read with Art.218 (3) of the Constitution before Election Commission of Pakistan

Consolidation of result whether made in presence or absence of petitioner would be resolved by Election Commission of Pakistan while deciding the matter, if agitated before it

Prompt decision by Election Commission of Pakistan would be in the spirit of Arts. 218(3) & 224 of the Constitution by strictly complying the provisions of Elections Act, 2017

High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Amount subject of appeal would remain subject to final adjudication in the course of exercise of statutory authority within the hierarchy of jurisdiction in accordance with law

Expression of non-existence of any present liability was limited for the purposes of decision of appeal by Election Appellate Tribunal

Liabilities of Federal Board of Revenue were not direct subject matter of proceedings and rights of both the sides were safeguarded to have the underlying controversy thrashed out by concerned statutory fora in accordance with law

Election Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed against appellant/candidate as the two instances of default which were informed to Returning Officer and resulted in rejection of nomination papers had adequately been addressed

Election Appellate Tribunal accepted nomination papers of appellant/candidate as order of Returning Officer had lost is efficacy

Election Appellate Tribunal directed Returning Officer to include name of appellant/candidate in revised list of validly nominated candidates of the constituency

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner/returned candidate was aggrieved of order passed by Election Commission declaring respondent as returned candidate on the basis of recount of ballot papers after consolidation of results and notification issued in favour of petitioner/returned candidate

Validity

Election Commission of Pakistan did not have power of review

Election Commission of Pakistan was empowered to direct Returning Officer to recount ballot papers before conclusion of consolidation proceedings

All such matters must be dealt with and decided prior to the declaration of results under S. 98 of Elections Act, 2017

Election Commission of Pakistan and its Benches exercising jurisdiction in the matter of adjudication were cognizant of the scope of its powers under Ss. 8 & 95 of Elections Act,2017

Power of review could not be invoked once consolidation of result had taken place and notification regarding a returned candidate had been issued

Election Commission of Pakistan refused to exercise its jurisdiction in all such election disputes where Election Tribunals were notified and contrary to its stance in a number of cases, the Election Commission of Pakistan proceeded to exercise its jurisdiction without adverting to any of the grounds which found favour with the Bench in similar cases

Obligation cast upon Election Commission of Pakistan under Art. 218(3) of the Constitution to ensure free and fair election should start with the primary responsibility to make consistent decisions based on the principles of rule of law and by following the basic tenet that every power had legal limits

High Court set aside the order passed by Election Commission of Pakistan as the same was without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Lahore Modern Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited was incorporated under Companies Ordinance, 1984, with Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan on 16-12-2008 and appellant / candidate had about 49% of its shares

Appellant / candidate was legally obliged to mention his shares of Lahore Modern Flour Mills (Pvt.) Limited in his nomination papers but he omitted to do so

Appellant / candidate had four foreign trips, out of which three were of UAE and one of Turkey, which foreign trips were declared to have incurred a cost of Rs.1,501,450/- but in her Tax Returns for year 2023, she mentioned her total personal expenses as Rs.2,477,050/- out of which Rs.1,501,450/- were described as having been paid as electricity charges and Rs.975,600/- as household expenses

Appellant / candidate mentioned nothing about expenses incurred on her foreign tours in Tax Return for year 2023 nor described any source in such regard

Such omission gained significance when seen in the context that the information about the cost incurred on foreign trips was required to be submitted according to the Format of Declaration of Assets and Liabilities

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Returning Officer

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant/candidate had to submit affidavit of his assets and liabilities on solemn affirmation attested by Oath Commissioner

Though declaration of appellant was attested by Oath Commissioner but at some unknown time and place

Oath commissioner attested the document in Pakistan whereas appellant was in Saudi Arabia on the given date

Such attestation under Chap. 12 of Volume-IV of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders had no legal worth

According to R. 11 of Chap. 12 of Volume-IV of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, if executant of affidavit is not known to the officer appointed to administer oath then he has to be identified by some person known to him and such fact is essentially required to be mentioned at the foot of affidavit

According to Rr. 14 & 15 of Chap. 12 of Volume-IV of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, executant is personally required to appear before Court, Magistrate or officer for an oath or affirmation

Appellant/ candidate never appeared before Oath Commissioner due to his presence in Saudi Arabia

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Returning Officer

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

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.

Petitioners assailed acceptance of nomination papers of respondent candidate by Election Appellate Tribunal which set aside the order passed by Returning Officer

Validity

Petitioners did not file any objections to candidature of respondent candidate at the time of scrutiny of his nomination papers under S.62 (i) of Elections Act, 2017

Locus standi of petitioners to challenge order of Election Appellate Tribunal in favour of respondent candidate was under heavy shadow

Nomination papers of respondent candidate were not rejected on any objection raised by any of the voters of the constituency but by Returning Officer on his own motion considering him as defaulter in payment of government taxes

Even in appeal before Election Appellate Tribunal against such order of Returning Officer, petitioners did not file any application to be made as party under S.63 of Elections Act, 2017, nor opposed appeal in any form

Petitioners lacked competency at such belated stage to challenge order of Election Appellate Tribunal

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Election Appellate Tribunal as there was no illegality in it and was based on valid reason

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

In dynamic landscape of democratic societies, principles of equality, justice and rule of law stand as the bedrock upon which inclusive governance is built

Within such framework, issue of transgender individuals' right to contest elections emerges as a crucial facet of ongoing pursuit of a more representative and equitable democracy

Nation's development and prosperity rests on upliftment of society in general and individuals in particular

Society can have socio-economic upliftment if all sections of the society are part of upliftment in the society

Discrimination, marginalization, and stigmatization are attached to lives of most persons living as transgender in Pakistan

Especially in developing countries, socially excluded communities are more vulnerable

Transgender community is one of the finest examples of such a group that remains lesser in the eyes of the law and is left behind in mainstream activities

Though visibility of transgender people is increasing in daily life, they are still discriminated against, disrespected, and downtrodden

One of the main challenges faced by transgender people is how to live a normal life in a society that maintains rigid gender norms and beliefs

In a society dominated by two prominent genders, representation of transgender persons at local, provincial and national levels is crucial

Provision of Art. 51 of the Constitution provides that every citizen of Pakistan having attained the age of eighteen years, if his name appears on electoral roll, is entitled to vote, unless declared by a Court to be of unsound mind

Constitution and the law focus on the expression "citizen" so as to exercise right of vote and to be elected to hold public office

Provisions of the Constitution and law to the extent of General Seats of the National Assembly are gender neutral

Individuals of transgender community are constitutionally and legally qualified to contest elections

Appeal preferred against Federal Shariat Court's judgment concerning Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018, remained suspended by operation of Constitutional provision i.e. Art. 203D of the Constitution

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as the appellant was not a registered voter of the constituencies - NA 46 & NA 47, and had not filed objections at the time of scrutiny before concerned Returning Officer

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was declared as returned candidate after initial counting of votes but on recount of ballot papers, respondent was declared as returned candidate

Validity

Petitioner did not deny that the margin of victory between him and respondent candidate was less than 5% of total votes polled in concerned constituency

Such difference of votes satisfied the condition stipulated in S. 95(5)(a) of Elections Act, 2017, for Returning Officer to recount ballot papers of one or more polling stations upon request

Liberal construction of law warranted to hold that Returning Officer's failure to recount ballot papers or to pass an order in respect of respondent candidate's application despite such application meeting the prescribed threshold amounted to rejection of such application

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petitioner failed to point out any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional defect in the order passed by Election Commission of Pakistan resulting in miscarriage of justice

Recount had taken place since filing of petition before High Court and petitioner had invoked equitable jurisdiction but did not point out any error in result of such recount whereby respondent candidate was declared successful candidate

Petitioner did not institute any legal proceedings before any other forum to challenge the order passed by Election Commission of Pakistan

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Applications before the ECP were dismissed with the observation that if the aggrieved parties (respondents) so desired, they may approach the Election Tribunal

High Court, before adverting to the question of jurisdiction, not only entertained the (Constitutional) petitions filed by the respondents/ aggrieved parties but also declared the respondents as returned candidates with directions to the ECP to notify them

High Court neither determined the question of jurisdiction, nor rendered any findings as to why the aggrieved parties/respondents were not bound by law to avail the remedy provided before the Election Tribunal under section 37 of the Balochistan Local Government Act, 2010 ('the 2010 Act')

In the instant case, after notifying the returned candidates and appointment of Election Tribunals, the ECP being sanguine and mindful to the provisions contained under section 37 of the 2010 Act, directed the parties to approach the Election Tribunal where the election disputes could be resolved by the Election Tribunal after recording evidence as the ECP had otherwise become functus officio for entertaining and deciding any election dispute

If the learned High Court was of the view that the issue challenged before it was not an election dispute, then definite findings should have been recorded bearing in mind the bar contained under section 37 of the 2010 Act and enabling provisions, but no findings were recorded with regard to jurisdiction

Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for deciding in accordance with law the question of jurisdiction of the High Court in an election dispute after hearing the parties.

Rival claims with regard to rejection of vote constituted factual controversy and such exercise was avoided by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Conduct of Presiding Officer, Municipal Committee, concerned was very relevant to ascertain fairness and transparency of election held for the seat of Chairman Municipal Committee

Provisions of Chapter VIII of Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules, 2013, pertained to election of Chairman and Vice Chairman Municipal Committees

Controversy between the parties pertained to R.63 (6) of the Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules, 2013

Presiding Officer of the Municipal Committee should have conducted summary inquiry at the spot to ascertain legality and validity of rejected vote, as apparently other marks were also put by some other pen on the disputed ballot papers

Voter himself could not have destroyed secrecy of his vote in order to provide benefit to petitioner

Election of Chairman Municipal Committee hinged upon the fate of such disputed votes, therefore, its rejection and subsequent conduct of Presiding Officer Municipal Committee by not holding summary inquiry at the spot had materially affected result of the election held for seat of Chairman Municipal Committee

High Court directed Election Commission to hold fresh elections and set-aside the result of election held for Chairman Municipal Committee, by declaring the same as void

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Grievance of petitioner was that his name was shifted from voter list of one area to voter list of other without serving him any notice

Validity

More than ample time for correction of electoral rolls was given to petitioner by Election Commission for correction, deletion or inclusion of his name in the concerned electoral area

Petitioner slept over his right who all of a sudden came out of his deep slumber at the eleventh hour and that too after announcement of election schedule

One should be vigilant about ones rights under the general law

High Court declined to interfere in electoral rolls finalized by Election Commission

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Election Commission displayed provisional electoral list and also final electoral roll list in a very elaborate manner and also gave ample time for correction of electoral rolls

Petitioners slept over their right and after announcement of election schedule, they started exercise to get transfer their names from an electoral roll of one area to another electoral roll area

One should be vigilant about ones rights under general law

Right to vote and franchise was vested right and such right could not be taken in isolation because every right was a corresponding obligation

Petitioners before invoking such right were required to have fulfilled their obligation of applying to revising authority or registration officer at relevant time under the provisions of Elections Act, 2017

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed de-notifying of 5 Members of Provincial Assembly on reserved seats by Election Commission along with denotification of 20 Members of Provincial Assembly on the basis of defection clause and all 25 Members belonged to same political party

Validity

Calculation of quota for seats reserved for women and non-Muslims was made on the basis of total number of general seats secured by each political party in general election to Provincial Assembly

Members to fill seats reserved for women and non-Muslims were elected through proportional representation system of political parties' lists of candidates

When seat reserved for women or non-Muslims in Provincial Assembly fell vacant, on account of death, resignation or disqualification of a member, such seat was to be filled by next person in order of precedence from party list of candidates, submitted to Election Commission in terms of Art.106(3)(c) of the Constitution upon compilation of results of general seats secured by each political party in general election, whose member had vacated such seat

Mention of three things in the Constitution necessarily implied that due to subsequent variation in strength of a political party on general seats, recount or recalculation of quota at any later stage was excluded

Word 'disqualification' was not defined in the Constitution, and thus, it must be given simple, natural, general, and grammatical meaning consistent with the purpose of the Constitution and also to bring harmony in its all clauses

Word "disqualification" was a noun and it simply meant, act of preventing somebody from doing something because he had broken a rule or was not suitable

Person stood disqualified to act as a member of Assembly either on the basis of matters listed in Art. 63 of the Constitution or on the ground of defection provided in Art.63-A of the Constitution

When reserved seat had become vacant on account of any kind of such disqualifications, it was to be filled in accordance with the procedure laid down in Art.224(6) of the Constitution

High Court set aside order passed by Election Commission as the same was passed without lawful authority and was of no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was candidate for local bodies elections and was aggrieved of order passed by Election Appellate Authority to transfer vote of respondent from other ward to the ward in question

Validity

Respondent was suffering with "defect of substantial nature", so he could not be allowed to contest election from the ward in question

Appellate Authority adopted a weird and queer procedure and despite observing that respondent was not registered voter in ward in question directed Election Commission for shifting /transfer of his nomination papers thereafter

High Court set aside order passed by Appellate Authority as the same was beyond his mandate and scope

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were aggrieved of rejection of their nomination papers for failure to file their declarations of assets and filing of joint nomination papers

Validity

Non-compliance of mandatory provision of R.16(3) of Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015 and non-filing of declaration of assets on solemn affirmation by petitioners, was defect of substantial nature that could not be remedied under proviso to R.18(3) of Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015

Nomination papers of petitioners were liable to be rejected under R.18(3)(c) of Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015, as it specifically provided such consequence in case of non-compliance of R.16 of Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015

In absence of name of candidate and signature of his seconder, his nomination form could not be deemed to have been filed in prescribed form and such was a substantial defect

Joint nomination could not be filed independently or singly which was liable to be rejected under R.18(3)(c) of Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015

Candidate contesting Local Government Elections under Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 was required to disclose/declare his assets on solemn affirmation in prescribed form at the time of filing his nomination papers

Such requirement was mandatory and in case of non-compliance nomination papers were liable to be rejected

High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by Returning Officers

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner invoked contempt proceedings against Advocate General of Sindh for non-compliance of interim order passed by High Court

Plea raised by contemnor (Advocate General) was that interim order passed by High Court was finally merged into final order passed eight days later and there was no direction restraining him from exercising his powers

Validity

Contempt proceedings cannot be initiated at desire or whim of a litigating party

Before proceeding against alleged contemnor Court has to be satisfied as to whether alleged contemnor has done any act coming within the mischief of law of contempt

Contempt lies where there is deliberate act on part of contemnor which within judicial conscious of the Court itself falls within the meaning of a contempt

Interim order always merges in final order and does not survive after final verdict has been announced in the matter

Once name of winning candidate was declared and notified in gazette, any objection to Election could not be gone into by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction

Parties were left to seek remedy at the proper forum

Petitioner was at liberty to file proper application before Returning Officer for recounting of votes

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

During filing of nomination papers he did not file any objection to the papers of respondent candidate, resultantly the same were accepted by Returning Officer

Petitioner assailed nomination papers of respondent candidate on the plea that he did not open new Bank Account for bye-elections

Validity

Respondent candidate mentioned exclusive Bank account for election expenditure in nomination form/paper but due to bona fide mistake mentioned the account opened by him for election expenses in year 2018, under the impression that the same would serve out the purpose as required in S.133 of Elections Act, 2017

Objection was not filed / raised by petitioner and another contesting candidate before Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers of respondent candidate and did not confront him

When respondent candidate realized the mistake, he opened a fresh exclusive Bank account for election expenses and submitted before Returning Officer, who accepted his nomination papers as it fulfilled entire requirement as provided under Ss. 60, 61 & 62 of Elections Act, 2017

Respondent candidate had made substantial compliance

Proceedings before Returning Officer and Election Tribunal were summary in nature

High Court declined to interfere in election process as election program was announced by Election Commission in which respondent candidate had completed nine stages and there was only one stage of polling day was left

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Since the election process had started from notification calling the elections and would be complete on declaration of result; every matter arising during such period regarding elections amounted to election dispute

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Elections Act, 2020, had provided a remedy to resolve such disputes by filing election petitions before competent forum

Any verdict of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction would affect the rights of the parties as well as of public at large

Points raised in the writ petitions were left open for the Election Tribunal

Writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner assailed notification issued by Election Commission whereby his earlier notification declaring him returned candidate was withdrawn

Validity

Petitioner was seeking issuance of writ of certiorari against order of Election Commission

High Court was to exercise jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution only if it was satisfied that no other adequate remedy was provided by law

Under subsection (4) to S.103-AA of Representation of the People Act, 1976, there was a remedy of appeal against order passed by Election Commission

For High Court to assume jurisdiction in such matter by altogether ignoring subsection (4) to S.103-AA of Representation of the People Act, 1976, as well as the mandate of Art.199 of the Constitution, would tantamount to reading a law with contempt

At times statutory remedy was inadequate either because all grounds open to petitioner in Constitutional petition were not available to him in statutory appeal or because statutory appeal / remedy could not be availed of unless some onerous condition such as deposit of full amount of disputed levy or penalty was required to be paid by petitioner, such could not be said of the remedy of appeal under subsection (4) to S.103-AA of Representation of the People Act, 1976

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as remedy of appeal to Supreme Court was available to petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Generally in election process, High Court cannot interfere with by invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of Constitution in view of Art.225 of the Constitution

Such is subject to an exception that where no legal remedy is available to an aggrieved person during process of election or after its completion against order of election functionaries which is patently illegal, without jurisdiction being coram-non-judice.

Filing of election petition to challenge declaration of returned candidate by Election Commission, on any ground of corrupt and illegal practices, is to prove against presumption, displacement of which requires high standard of evidence

While conducting election of a constituency, people of constituency and government machinery undergo an extensive exercise

Election petitioner, in fact, seeks to discard whole process, which cannot and should not lightly be entertained unless alleged corrupt or illegal practice is oozing out of contents of election petition supported by mandatory attachments

Strictness for entertaining election petition appears logical for reason that from filing of petition till decision thereon people of constituency and returned candidate remain in state of uncertainty and discharge of sacred trust to extent of people of that constituency is compromised.

Petitioner was returned candidate and was aggrieved of recounting of votes to elect Member for National Council for Homeopathy

Notification of petitioner was set aside on ground that petitioner did not take oath

Validity

Procedure adopted to oust petitioner was alien to law and same was nothing but rarity and sham

Once notification of success of candidate was issued, Returning Officer ceased to hold any authority to alter results

Will of electorate could not be frustrated in such manner and difference of 158 votes could not have been covered except manipulations with ballot papers in custody of authorities, therefore, emphasis on recounting was ridiculous

Jurisdiction exercised by authorities in disqualifying petitioner and declaring unsuccessful candidate as returned candidate was arbitrary, illegal, unprecedented, perverse, alien to law, against principles of natural justice, mala fide and coram non judice

High Court set aside notification issued in favour of respondent and that in favour of petitioner was restored

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Trial Court failed to call for record of Election Commission from concerned offices and did not provide full and fair opportunities to the parties to produce their evidence pro-contra

Judgment passed by Trial Court was non-speaking, perverse, ridiculous and not sustainable

High Court directed Trial Court to call for record and provide full and fair opportunities to both parties to lead evidence resultantly, judgment was set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners assailed election schedule on grounds that voter list was defective and did not contain necessary information

Validity

Provisions of Islamabad Capital Territory Cooperative Societies (Managing Committee Elections) Rules, 2014 provided a different requirement, especially prescribed payment of plot as well as default, if any, as referred in R. 3(ii)(b) of Islamabad Capital Territory Cooperative Societies (Managing Committee Elections) Rules, 2014 for candidates and R. 6(v) of Islamabad Capital Territory Cooperative Societies (Managing Committee Elections) Rules, 2014 for voters

Such information was not reflected in voter list nor in election schedule published in newspaper

Eligibility of voters provided in election schedule gave a precise impression that a member of society who had paid all dues was eligible to vote and his name was to be reflected in voters list with his credentials

Any voters list which lacked information of payments or dues clearance was not a valid voters list

High Court directed Election Commission to notify new election date on basis of previous nomination papers and notified voters list

High Court further directed authorities to conduct elections on fresh notified date

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Nomination papers filed by petitioner were rejected by the Authority on grounds that he was carrying business of real estate

Validity

Petitioner acknowledged that he had been running business of real estate two years ago

Such factual aspect was already adjudicated upon by Election Commission as well as appellate forum

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings as contention of petitioner was based upon disputed questions of fact and same had already been resolved by forums below

Petitioner could not discharge his onus by simply placing affidavit as status of affidavit had no value unless its facts and deponent had gone through test of cross-examination before any Authority

High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by two forums below

Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was aggrieved of acceptance of nomination papers of respondent by authorities to contest elections of Cooperative Society

Plea raised by petitioner was that respondent was running a company which was providing security services to cooperative society in question, like this he was getting direct benefit from the society

Validity

If such practices were allowed, it would damage entire structure of the Society By-laws and all those individuals who had vested interest would enter into arena which further would damage affairs of society and such interest of members were prejudiced

No one could become member unless his name was confirmed in annual general meeting and respondent got membership of Society in question after holding of last annual general meeting

Completion of one year had yet to take effect therefore, respondent was not qualified to contest elections

High Court set aside orders passed by election authorities

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner made an application under S. 103AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 to declare results of a bye-election as void and in support of the same, submitted a number of affidavits from voters of the constituency alleging fraud

Said application was rejected by the Election Commission on the ground that the remedy to be availed by the petitioner was to approach the Election Tribunal as mandated by Art. 225 of the Constitution with the observation that some of the affidavits submitted by the petitioner were false and fabricated

Subsequently, on basis of said observation, and upon the application of the respondent, the Election Commission proceeded to initiate proceedings for contempt against the petitioner under S. 103A of Representation of the People Act, 1976

Validity

Admittedly there was no order which had been disobeyed or disregarded by the petitioner and no proceedings were interfered with or obstructed by the petitioner

Contempt was said to have been committed by filing false affidavits in support of the petitioner's application under S. 103AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976

Election Commission did not adjudicate on the merits of the complaint under S. 103AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, therefore it could not have concluded that some affidavits were false and fabricated as the said observation was presumptive without following any process of the law

Election Commission, therefore, essentially left an option open to itself to proceed against the petitioner once the Election Tribunal decided the fate of his election petition

Election Commission's observation regarding the allegedly false and fabricated affidavits prejudiced the case of the petitioner before the Election Tribunal wherein he had challenged the results of the bye-elections, and which had not been decided so far

Since the Election Commission did not adjudicate upon the merits of the petitioner's complaint under S. 103AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976; there was no legal justification for it to observe that some of the affidavits filed by the petitioner were false , especially after the Commission itself had held that the matter was to be decided by the Election Tribunal, meaning thereby that Commission had accepted that jurisdiction in the matter lay with the Election Tribunal, hence the veracity of the affidavits was to be determined by the Election Tribunal and not the Commission

Proceedings for contempt of court against the petitioner under S. 103A of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 were declared to be illegal

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Despite specific objection regarding his being proclaimed offender in a case involving attack on courts, judges and advocates having been raised before Returning Officer, petitioner did not join proceedings before Anti-Terrorism Court

Petitioner, after rejection of nomination papers, obtained interim pre-arrest bail from High Court i.e., two days after rejection of nomination papers

No illegality or infirmity or any jurisdictional defect existed in the order by Authorities (rejecting nomination papers) attracting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by High Court under provisions of Art.199 of the Constitution

Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Mere appointment of Election Tribunal would neither curtail nor bar the jurisdiction of High Court when matter was already under adjudication before it.

Petitioners submitted their nomination papers but as the proposer and seconder were not from the ward in which election was to be held, therefore, Returning Officer rejected the papers

Plea raised by petitioners was that they be allowed to replace their proposer and seconder

Validity

To allow proposer and seconder to be substituted would mean a fresh nomination to be made

Such would mean an extension in the date of receiving of nomination papers and a change in rest of the schedule too and the same would impinge upon the rights of candidates

Election schedule could not be changed for facilitating merely one candidate and the same would be making a mockery of the entire electoral process and its solemn and serious nature

Defect was substantial and could not be covered by remedial provision of R.14(7) of Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2013

Distinction was to be drawn in cases where defect was flagged at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers and the cases where it had become known to candidate before the date of receipt of nomination papers had come to pass

In the former case, Returning Officer could not proceed to remedy the defect in purported exercise of powers under R.14(7) of Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2013; in the latter case the candidate could choose to remedy the defect by filing fresh nomination papers by any mode provided by law

Such would not entail exercise of discretion of Returning Officer and provisions of R.14(7) of Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2013 were not engaged

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Returning Officer

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Main grievances of petitioners were that election results were result of rigging, illegalities and irregularities committed by Returning Officer

Validity

Generalized and vague allegations were raised by petitioners without any material or substance after completion of entire election process and announcement of unofficial results

Most of the facts as stated in memo of petition were seriously disputed and denied by officials as well as respondents through their affidavits, and the same otherwise required evidence

Such disputed facts could not be examined by high Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution

High Court declined to interfere in the election result

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was Ex-Chief of Army Staff who suspended the Constitution and disturbed the democratic process in the country

Petitioner, after retirement filed his nomination papers to contest general election but the same were rejected by Returning Officer

Validity

Word 'righteous' occurring in Art.62(f) of the Constitution was not defined, therefore, it would be given dictionary meaning i.e. moral right, just or right, virtues, law abiding

Person who had played with democratic process and abrogated the Constitution could not be termed as 'righteous'

Orders by Returning Officer, whereby nomination form of petitioner, submitted for National Assembly, was rejected and subsequently appeal was also dismissed, did not require any interference

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

In appropriate cases, jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution can be invoked and provisions of Art.225 of the Constitution and S.52 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, cannot completely oust jurisdiction of High Court.