Elector
Elector legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
"Elector" is a person who is a duly qualified voter the one who has a vote in the choice of -any candidate to an office.
"Elector", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/20689
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Elector"
P L D 1965 (W
MANZOOR ALEEM QURESHI‑ — Petitioner Versus ZAHOOR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER — ‑Respondents
Court: shall be entitled to be enrolled on the electoral roll for that electoral unit. Article 158 (1) already cited enacts that the persons enrolled on the roll shall, in accordance with law, which would, in this case be the Electoral College Act, from time to time, elect from amongst themselves a person who is not less than twenty‑five years of age, who shall be known as the Elector for that unit. A plain reading of the Article makes it clear that the person to be elected as Elector has to be 25 years of age, when the persons enrolled on the electoral roll elect him from amongst themselves from time to time. Section 8 of the Electoral College Act provides for the preparation of a draft electoral roll containing the name of every citizen, who, on the qualifying date, is not less than 21 years of age. The qualifying date is the 1st day of May 1964. Under subsection (3), the Registration officer shall make such additions and modifications as may be required by any decision or any claim or objection, and may make corrections of such clerical or printing errors as may come to his notice. The making of the claims and objections is provided for in the Electoral College Rules, 1964. Under subsection (4) of section 8 Electoral College Act, the Registration Officer shall publish in the prescribed manner the final electoral roll for an electoral unit and under subsection (5) an electoral roll may be amended and corrected from time to time in the prescribed manner so as to include the name of any person who has, since its preparation, become qualified to be enrolled thereon, or to delete the name bf‑any person who has died or has become disqualified for enrolment. Proviso (iii) to subsection (3) to section 23 of the Act enacts that the Returning Officer shall not enquire into the correctness or validity' of any entry in the electoral roll. These provisions make it abundantly clear that persons on the electoral roll, i.e., those who are 21 years of age and are not of unsound mind and are residents of the electoral unit under section 10 of the Electoral College Act are entitled to elect from amongst themselves a person who is 25 years of age. This means that he must be 25 years of age on the day the nomination paper is filed. Since, however, the correctness of the entries in the electoral roll cannot be inquired into by the Returning Officer, his age should have been recorded as 25 years in the electoral roll also. Normally, corrections in the electoral roll are allowed up to a few days preceding the filing of nomination papers, and since Article 158 (1) also provides for election in accordance with law, the result is that the intending candidate, to be elected as elector, should have been recorded as 25 in the electoral roll. The overall effect of these provisions is that a person should be recorded in the e electoral roll as 25 and be of 25 years of age on the nomination day. The words "duly qualified" in section 21 (1) of the Electoral College Act have, reference in fact to Article 158 (1) of the Constitution and not to paragraph 1, Part II of the Second Schedule to the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, which govern elections under the Basic Democracies Order. The election iii' question is not an election under the Basic Democracies Order although the members, who have been elected, may ultimately become members of the Basic Democracies. There is also some difference between the provisions of the Basic Democracies Order and the Electoral College Act. The disqualifications in section 53 C of the Electoral College Act are not the same as provided in paragraph 2, Part 11 of the Second Schedule to the Basic Democracies Order. All that section 2 (25) of the Electoral College Act, 1964, enacts is that "all words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, shall have the same meanings as in that Order", but this is a definition clause and is not helpful in finding the date on which a person to be elected to an Electoral College shall be 25 years of age.P L D 1966 (W
ZAINUL ABIDIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Court:P L D 1981 Lahore 374
Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑ Ss. 19, 20 & 24 read with Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, rr. 13 & 14‑Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974)‑Jurisdiction of Election Tribunal‑Entry of name in electoral roll by itself not sufficient to make a person eligible for being a candidate at election but he is required to possess some qualifications different from those possessed by voter‑Election of returned candidate challenged on ground that he was not qualified for being a candidate‑Candidate getting his vote illegally transferred from one electoral unit to another electoral unit wherefrom he was elected‑Election of such candidate can be challenged under r. 13 of Rules of 1979‑Election Tribunal, held, legally competent to examine validity of entry regarding candidate's name in electoral roll of electoral unit from which he was elected‑Election petition, not making any allegation that returned candidate's disqualification was known to voters of concerned electoral unit and yet some of them had cast their votes. in his favour‑Held, Election Tribunal could not in such circumstances, declare candidate polling next higher number of votes as elected.‑Jurisdiction.2016 M L D 1881
YOUSAF ALI — Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Chief Election Commissioner and 4 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar1985 C L C 744
Ch. MANZOOR AHMED-Petitioner Versus AZAD JAMMU and KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 5 others — Respondents
Court: Azad J & KP L D 1965 (W
GHULAM ABBAS‑Petitioner Versus THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ELECTION
Court:2006 Y L R 289
Mian MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD — Respondent
Court: LahoreP L D 1992 Karachi 414
MUHAMMAD USMAN ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL ELECTION AUTHORITY, SINDH and 2 others ‑‑‑ Respondents
Court:P L D 1968 Supreme Court 235
Syed AINUDDIN CHOWDHURY‑Appellant Versus (1) THE ELECTION TRIBUNAL, CHITTAGONG,
Court:1988 C L C 533
SALEEM ZIA‑‑Petitioner Versus Lt.‑Col. (Retd.) MOJIB,, DIRECTOR TECHNICAL,
Court: Karachi