Election

Petitioner was aggrieved of change in composition of the Board and fixing of date and place for Chairman's election by Election Commission of Pakistan

Validity

Purpose of election was representation of Regions for effective policy making and not to get a person of Government's choice elected as Chairman

Constitutional Courts could not and should not interfere in policy making which was exclusive domain of elected Government (executive), but Courts could interfere or at least observe, where policy making infringed fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution

Bedrock of the Constitution was exercise of sovereignty through elected representatives

Chairman of Cricket Board was elected from two members nominated by the Patron because the Government was always in a position to influence representatives of Service Organizations and Departments

Notification for appointment of Management Committee did not suffer from any illegality or lack of authority

Federal Government was competent under S. 3 of Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962, read with paragraphs 38 and 48 of the Constitution of Pakistan Cricket Board, 2014, to renotify and change composition of Management Committee

High Court directed to notify Board of Governors, following the relevant provisions of Pakistan Cricket Board Constitution, 2014, as the existing Management was competent to run the affairs and complete the task assigned in notifications in question, whereafter election of the Chairman would be conducted within 07-days

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners assailed election of Stewards of Race Course Club on the plea that they had informed respondent regarding contesting of election and sought return of their withdrawal letters

Validity

Only requirement for communication of revocation of proposal was that the same came into knowledge of the person to whom it was made

Revocation of withdrawing from contesting elections made by petitioners to respondent was duly communicated to him and came into his knowledge who himself admitted such factum in his affidavit

Respondent at one hand did not handover withdrawal letters of petitioners before holding of Annual General Meeting (AGM) and on the other hand, elected ten candidates as Stewards without consent and without giving right to vote

Such act of respondent was not only violative to Art. 27 of Articles of Association of the Club but also was against principle of corporate democracy denying right of vote of petitioners to participate in AGM

Court was empowered under S. 160 of Companies Act, 2017, to declare election of all directors or any one or more of them invalid if it was satisfied that there had been material irregularity in its holding

High Court declared that proceedings at AGM were not in accordance with law and were invalid in terms of S. 136 of Companies Act, 2017

High Court also declared that in terms of S. 160 of Companies Act, 2017 elections of directors were invalid

High Court directed respondents to hold AGM afresh for the elections of Stewards of the Club in accordance with law and Articles and Memorandum of Association of the Club

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Nomination papers were rejected by Convenor Election Sub-Committee and their appeals and revisions were dismissed by Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies and Secretary Cooperative Societies, respectively

Petitioners argued that they were retired employees and they were not engaged in any professional activity/business to be considered as their source of earning/ occupation hence it was not worth mentioning in their nomination papers

Held, that in all the impugned orders, respondents/authorities had observed that the petitioners had not provided mandatory information regarding their profession/occupation in the nomination papers

Each of the columns of nomination papers had to be filled either way which the petitioner had not filled

If the argument that petitioner were retired employees hence it was not important to fill occupational/ business column, was admitted as correct, even then the petitioners had the opportunity to mention the occupational/ business as "Retired Employees" in Column (3) of the nomination papers which was mandatory requirement on the basis of which their qualification/ disqualification could be determined

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Nomination papers were rejected by Convenor Election Sub-Committee and their appeals and revisions were dismissed by Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies and Secretary Cooperative Societies, respectively

Petitioners contended that Election Rules 9(iii) and 9(iv) neither amounted to disqualification of petitioners nor contained any penal provision; that nomination papers did not lack material particulars nor did they violate the mandatory provisions

Held, petitioners were required to submit their nomination papers by themselves but the same were submitted by someone else

Submission of nomination papers through proxy was violative to Election Rules, 9(iii) and 9(iv) of the Society

If a matter was not covered by Election Rules of the Society, the same should be settled under the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, Cooperative Societies Rules, 1927, Bye-Laws of the Society

If some issue remained unattended, the Election Sub-Commission was empowered to consider/decide the same, but its decision would be subject to the right of appeal/revision before competent authorities

Petitioners had exhausted their remedies upto the Secretary Cooperative who decided the revision petition observing the violation of Rr.9 (iii) & 9(iv) of the Election Rules

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Petitioner was not registered voter of the ward from where he intended to contest election instead he was registered voter of another ward

Petitioner did not fulfill qualification criteria in terms of S.35 (1)(c) of Sindh Local Government Act, 2013

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Returning Officer

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner sought cancellation of notification issued by Election Commission of Pakistan in favour of respondent on the plea that respondent did not fulfill requirements of Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution

Validity

For declaring a candidate disqualified from being elected or chosen as member of Parliament or Provincial Assembly there was to be a declaration under Art.62 (1)(f) of the Constitution from Court of law

Findings of Supreme Court, in terms of Art.189 of the Constitution carried binding effect

Bar contained in Art. 62 (1)(f) of the Constitution was not attracted

Grant of relief in Constitutional jurisdiction was a matter of discretion where bona fides of petitioner could be tested to see if he had come with clean hands

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was disqualified by Election Commission of Pakistan for holding foreign nationality at the time of filing his nomination papers who had filed false affidavit to such effect

Validity

When a citizen of Pakistan had acquired citizenship of a foreign state, such citizen was not qualified to be elected or chosen for Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) until and unless such legal status i.e. citizenship of foreign state was obliterated or extinguished

Mere initiation of process of relinquishment was not sufficient because disqualification would remain operative till completion and conclusion of the process

Date on which affidavit was submitted along with nomination papers, the process of renunciation of petitioner's foreign citizenship was not concluded nor completed

High Court declined to interfere in order of disqualification passed by Election Commission of Pakistan, as the same did not suffer from any legal infirmity

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Elections were to democracy what breathing was to life, and fair elections were what breathed life into healthy democracies; they gave the public a voice into the laws and policies they were governed by, and a chance to choose who would make those laws and policies

Elections was a process of reciprocal political discourse

Rules of an election, including the electoral boundaries and the timelines for campaigns, structure the process of reciprocal dialogue between candidates and voters in their electoral districts

Final act of voting, itself a form of political expression, was the culmination of the process of deliberative engagement throughout an election period

Stability of the electoral process was therefore crucial not only to political legitimacy, but also to the rights of candidates and voters to meaningfully engage in the political discourse necessary for voters to cast an informed vote, and for those elected to govern in response to the expressed views of the electorate.

Candidate being Government contractor had pecuniary interest in affairs of Town Committee where he remained Member/Chairman

Candidate assailed the order of Election Commission wherein he was disqualified from holding office of Chairman/Member of Town Committee

Held, not only could the disqualification be predicated in respect of work to be done or goods to be supplied to a Council but such disqualification was also attracted if a person had otherwise any direct pecuniary interest in the affairs of the said Council

Section 36(1)(i) of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 contained two disjunctive segments and the candidate had been unable to demonstrate before the Election Commission that he had no pecuniary interest in the affairs of the Committee where he remained Member/Chairman

Constitutional petition dismissed.

Non-disclosure of liabilities and loans of the companies of which the candidate was Director/Share holder, sans an element of design, scheme or intent does not make a candidature open to be questioned, if it can be shown that it was a bona fide error and that there was no intention to gain any benefit by withholding such information from the constituents

Bona fide error

Scope

Scrutiny for the purposes of Art.62(1)(f) of the Constitution is not based on moralistic or subjective criterion

Such condition does not contemplate perfection but requires a person to be honest, reliable and trustworthy.

Individuals or organizations who wished to "sponsor election advertising" were required by S. 239(1) of Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 (Canada) to register with Chief Electoral Officer

Question as to whether individuals who engaged in political self-expression through small-scale election activities like displaying homemade signs in their windows, putting bumper stickers on their cars, or wearing T-shirts with political messages on them, came within definition of "sponsor" and needed to register

Held, that the words of Ss. 228, 229 & 239 of the Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 [Canada] ("the Act") read in their grammatical and ordinary sense and harmoniously with the statutory scheme, the object of the Act, and the intention of the legislature, indicated that a "sponsor" required to register was an individual or organization who received an advertising service from another individual or organization, whether in exchange for payment or without charge

Individuals who neither paid others for advertising services nor received advertising services from others without charge were not "sponsors" within the meaning of S. 229(1) of the Act

Any individual working entirely on his own, without paying for or receiving any service in the creation or dissemination of election advertising, was not required to comply with any of these provisions of the Act

Such individuals may transmit their own points of view, whether by posting a handmade sign in a window, or putting a bumper sticker on a car, or wearing a T-shirt with a message on it, without registering

Small-scale election advertising of such nature was not covered by the Act

By confining the registration requirement to sponsors and exempting individual political self-expression by persons who were not sponsors, S. 239 of the Act tailored the impingement on expression to what was required by the object of the Act

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Individuals or organizations who wished to "sponsor election advertising" were required by S. 239(1) of Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 [Canada] ('The Act") to register with Chief Electoral Officer

Question as to whether registration requirement was a reasonable and demonstrably justified limit on expression of such sponsors

Held, that although the registration requirement imposed on sponsors limited their right of expression guaranteed by S. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter"), the limit was justified under S.1 of the Charter, which provided that rights and freedoms were subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as could be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society

Besides the scope of the infringement of S. 2(b) of the Charter was minimal

Registration process was simple and unlikely to deter much, if any, expression in which a sponsor would otherwise engage

Impingements on the freedom of political expression due to the registration requirement were limited, since only political expression in the form of 'sponsorship' of election advertising stood to be delayed or inhibited

Sponsorship involved receiving advertising services; it was an organized activity that involved at least two, and usually more, people; it was by its nature not spontaneous

Such limited deleterious effects were outweighed by the benefits of the registration scheme i.e. permitting the public to know who was engaged in organized advocacy in their elections, ensuring that those who sponsored election advertising must provide the public with an assurance that they were in compliance with election law, and providing the Chief Electoral Officer with information that could assist in the enforcement of the Act and in informing sponsors of its requirements

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Registration of sponsors of election advertising increased transparency, openness, and public accountability in the electoral process and thus promoted an informed electorate.

Honesty, integrity, probity and bona fide dealings of a returned candidate were matters of public interest because such standards of rectitude and propriety were made the touchstones in the constitutional qualifications of legislators laid down in Arts. 62 & 63 of the Constitution.

Success of returned candidate is mandate of people of electoral and the same should not be lightly interfered with on mere allegation of involvement in criminal case, unless proved on touchstone of standard of evidence in a criminal case.

Person attracting any of the disqualifications under relevant provisions (section 44) of the Constitution (Australia) "shall be incapable of being chosen"

Meaning

Words "shall be incapable of being chosen" referred to the process of being chosen, of which nomination was an essential part

When a candidate for election was not qualified for election at the time of nomination, he or she was incapable of being chosen

Person who "had been convicted and was under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer" [section 44(ii) of Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act]

Scope

Words used in relevant provision of the Constitution (Australia) made it evident that the framers of the Constitution were concerned to ensure that not only should a person who had already been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year or longer be disqualified from being chosen or from sitting as a Senator; so too should a person who was able to be so sentenced.

Ineligibility for election due to conviction for an offence punishable by term of imprisonment for one year or longer [section 44(ii) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act ("the Constitution")]

At date of his nomination senator in question was convicted for an offence punishable by term of imprisonment for one year or longer, and he was liable to be sentenced

Conviction was subsequently annulled

Question was whether (subsequent) annulment of conviction could have retrospective effect, and remove the disqualification under S. 44(ii) of the Constitution

[Per Kiefel, CJ]: Held, that the Constitution stated anyone convicted of an offence punishable by a prison term of one year or longer was not eligible for election

Senator in question was charged and convicted in the year 2014 for larceny

Conviction was later annulled in August 2016, but because he was under the charge at the time of his election in July 2016, he was ineligible for election

Subsequent annulment of the conviction had no effect on that state of affairs

Senator was a person who was 'convicted' and 'subject to be sentenced' for an offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer at the time of the 2016 election, both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law, therefore he was incapable of being chosen as a senator under S. 44(ii) of the Constitution

[Per Nettle, J agreeing but with his own reasons:] Disqualification under S. 44(ii) of the Constitution was directed to a conviction in fact regardless of whether it was subsequently annulled

Need for certainty in the electoral process made it highly desirable that, if a person was convicted of a relevant offence, he or she should forthwith cease to be eligible for election, or, if already elected, should cease to be capable of sitting, until and unless the conviction was quashed or annulled or the sentence was spent; if it were otherwise, there could be long periods following conviction of a relevant offence until an appeal or application for annulment was finally heard and determined in which it would be impossible to say whether the person so convicted was or was not eligible to be elected, or was or was not eligible to continue to sit as a member of Parliament

At the date of his nomination, senator in question stood convicted of larceny but he remained to be sentenced

Maximum penalty that the court could impose on the senator was two years' imprisonment

Consequently, looking at the matter as at the date of nomination, the senator was, by reason of his conviction and the operation of S. 44(ii) of the Constitution, incapable of being chosen as a senator

High Court (of Australia) ordered that by reason of S. 44(ii) of the Constitution, there was a vacancy in the Senate for the place for which senator in question was returned

Matter was disposed of accordingly.

Legislative redistricting plan providing for districts that were roughly equal in total population instead of equal in the number of eligible voters

Constitutionality

"One person, one vote" principle allowed States to use total population, not just total voting-eligible population, in drawing of legislative districts

Use of a total-population baseline in drawing legislative districts served the principle of representational equality

Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all states (of the US) and countless local jurisdictions had followed for centuries

No reason was shown for the court to disturb such longstanding use of total population method

As the Framers of the Constitution (of the US) and the Fourteenth Amendment (to the US Constitution) comprehended, representatives served all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote

Nonvoters had an important stake in many policy debates

By ensuring that each representative was subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total population apportionment promoted equitable and effective representation

[Per Clarence Thomas, JSC: Constitution (of the US) did permit drawing up legislative districts using the total population apportionment but it did not 'impose' such view

Constitution (of the US) did not make any of the different methods of apportionment as the exclusive means of apportionment for State and local representatives

Constitution instead reserved such matters to the people

[Per Samuel Anthony Alito, JSC: Question as to whether a State was permitted to use some measure other than total population (method) was an important and sensitive question that the Court could consider if and when the Court had before it a State districting plan that, unlike the present case, used something other than total population as the basis for equalizing the size of districts]

Supreme Court held that (US) States may draw up legislative districts using the total population apportionment.

Such finding must be based on affirmative evidence and not on presumptions, inferences and surmises.

Petitioner asserted that amendment made in Cost and Management Accountants Regulations, 1990, vide Notification No. SRO 1020(I)/2014, dated 11-11-2014, for conducting election could not have retrospective effect

Validity

Held, as per provisions of Regulations earlier there was no online procedure available, therefore, it was possible that a candidate could not approach overseas members for canvassing

Overseas members, with amendment in question, had also become important for any candidate

Amendments had also affected rights of all contesting candidates, therefore, the same could not be allowed to operate retrospectively

New procedure was introduced for balloting of overseas members which in fact affected rights of contesting candidates as well, therefore, it could not be allowed to apply retrospectively

High Court directed the authorities to hold elections on the basis of Cost and Management Accountants Regulations, 1990, without taking into account amendments made by Notification No.SRO.1020(I)/2014 dated 11-11-2014

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Certain elements could be distilled as being of fundamental importance to the conduct of free and fair elections; first, every person who was entitled to vote should, if possible, be registered to do so; second, no one who was not entitled to vote should be permitted to do so; third, insofar as elections had a territorial component, as was the case with municipal elections where candidates were in the first instance elected to represent particular wards, the registration of voters must be undertaken in such a way as to ensure that only voters in that particular area (ward) were registered and permitted to vote; and, fourth, the Constitution should protect not only the act of voting and the outcome of elections, but also the right to participate in elections as a candidate and to seek public office.

Nature of the irregularities and their impact on the conduct, as well as the result of the election, so far as that could be assessed, must be measured against the constitutional standard that elections must be "free and fair"

Court must be satisfied on all the evidence placed before it that there were real (and not speculative or imaginary) grounds for concluding that the elections were not "free and fair".

Concluding that an election was not free and fair, and therefore must be set aside was always tempting; but that may be an unduly facile conclusion

Overturning an election was a serious business

Electoral legitimacy and the integrity of the electoral process were of enormous importance

Right to vote was a precious one for all

Many people, in many different ways, struggled and fought to secure the right to vote for all people

Many devoted their lives to the struggle for democracy; others were imprisoned, banned, harassed and exiled

Struggle of all those who worked to bring democracy was properly honoured when free and fair elections were conducted to determine the will of those who had the right to vote, therefore, it was vital that courts were jealous of the privilege so hardly won

In determining a just and equitable remedy, where an election had been held not to be free and fair, these considerations must form the backdrop to the performance of the court's role as the guardian of the Constitution and the Electoral Commission's performance of its obligation to ensure free and fair elections

Where the elections conducted by the Electoral Commission were not free and fair and the Constitutional right to participate in and contest those elections was infringed, it was not sufficient to set-aside the result of such elections solely on the basis that claimant had proved a certain number of votes as irregular votes

In any event it was always difficult to predict what would have occurred had those electoral irregularities been absent

Possibility always existed that had the irregularities not been present choice of voters would have still fallen on the same candidates who were declared elected.

Expression "free and fair" highlighted both the freedom to participate in the electoral process and the ability of the political parties and candidates, both aligned and non-aligned, to compete with one another on relatively equal terms

As to the former, from the perspective of a political party or an individual candidate seeking election in a municipal ward, it demanded the freedom to canvass; to advertise; and to engage in the activities normal for a person seeking election

Phenomena like "no go" areas; the denial of facilities for the conduct of meetings; disruption of meetings; the destruction of advertising material or the intimidation of candidates, workers or supporters, could all prevent an election from being categorised as "free and fair".

Independent candidates in the present case, such as the applicant, were constrained to fight by-elections under the shadow of uncertainty occasioned by the irregular registration of an unknown number of voters in the affected wards who were not entitled to vote and an inability to identify who these were or to do anything about it; their efforts were hampered by the late delivery of the segments of the voters' roll and, in particular, the absence of voters' addresses, when such segments were delivered to them

Voters in the affected wards were deprived of the free and fair election to which they were entitled, while the candidates were deprived of the right to participate in a free and fair election

Just and equitable relief in the present case was to set-aside results of such by-elections and order fresh by-elections.

Procedure adopted for lodging objections to voter's rolls should not only favour large and well-resourced parties, who had the resources to monitor voter rolls throughout the year, but also independent candidates and smaller political parties seeking to make a political breakthrough

Procedure which restricted ability of independent candidates and smaller political parties to object to voters' list would be a substantial check on their ability to participate meaningfully in elections and their constitutional right to stand as candidates for public office.

Elections conducted on basis of such questionable voters' roll could not be described as free and fair.

Petitioner asserted that amendment made in Cost and Management Accountants Regulations, 1990, vide Notification No. S.R.O. 1020(I)/2014, dated 11-11-2014, for conducting election could not have retrospective effect

Validity

Held, as per provisions of Regulations earlier there was no online procedure available, therefore, it was possible that a candidate could not approach overseas members for canvassing

Overseas members, with amendment in question, had also become important for any candidate

Amendments had also affected rights of all contesting candidates, therefore, the same could not be allowed to operate retrospectively

New procedure was introduced for balloting of overseas members which in fact affected rights of contesting candidates as well, therefore, it could not be allowed to apply retrospectively

High Court directed the authorities to hold elections on the basis of Cost and Management Accountants Regulations, 1990, without taking into account amendments made by Notification No.S.R.O. 1020(I)/2014 dated 11-11-2014

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner assailed amendments made in S.12 of Balochistan Local Government Act, 2013, whereby category of professionals and social workers was included and R.63(5) of Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules, 2013, to elect Chairman and Vice Chairman of local council with show of hands

Validity

Special or reserved seats could only be maintained in respect of a class, segment of society or a minority community that was considered to be downtrodden, impoverished, alienated or discriminated against and who had been specifically mentioned in the Constitution, like non-Muslims, women, peasants and workers

Social workers and professionals could not be categorized as tangible class and one that required either encouragement or protection as they were not downtrodden, impoverished, alienated or discriminated

By taking away reserved seats of workers and peasants and giving them to social workers and professionals was discriminatory, illegal and violated Art.25 read with Art.32 of the Constitution and protection and special status accorded to peasants and workers

Amendment in Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules, 2013, whereby manner of voting for Chairman and Vice-Chairman of local council, from secret ballot to show of hands, could not be enacted as government had not been granted express authority by Balochistan Local Government Act, 2013, in such regard

Supreme Court and Federal Shariat Court had endorsed secrecy of ballots and Art.140-A, read with Art.226 of the Constitution mandated elections by secret ballot

Provisions of Balochistan Local Government (Amendment) Act, 2014, was repugnant to the Constitution and was void

Notification No.5-1/2010-13 (BLCEC)/1640-1704, dated 4-2-2014, was made in excess of jurisdiction, was ultra vires Balochistan Local Government Act, 2013, and the Constitution, the same was declared to be void and of no legal effect

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Any step or stage in the (electoral) process which had a bearing on the right to vote was an indispensable part of 'election' or electoral process.

Duty of Court stated.

Election law concerning voters was mandatory, and that relating to officers conducting the elections was directory.

Pre-requisites stated.

Nomination papers of respondents were rejected by Returning Officer on the basis of record provided by financial institution

Chief Court set aside the order passed by Returning Officer and declared the respondents to be qualified to contest the election

Financial institution assailed the order passed by Chief Court on the plea of respondents being bank defaulter

Validity

Objection regarding disqualification of respondents as candidates in election on the basis of their financial liability was not raised either by their opposing candidate or any other person from their respective constituency, therefore, financial institution had no right under election laws to challenge their candidature

Any person who was not directly or indirectly affected by any order passed by an authority, was not an aggrieved person to have any right or locus standi to challenge such order

Financial liability of a person of public organization might provide a ground for disqualification of such person to hold public office if that person was adjudicated "defaulter" under law and in absence of such evidence of default the declaration regarding qualification of that person to contest election by a court might not infringe right of financial institution / organization to avail the remedy for recovery of loan from defaulters

Financial institution on the basis of financial liability of respondents might have no personal right to raise objection before the election authorities regarding their qualification to become candidates in election and were not aggrieved person against order of acceptance of nomination papers of respondents

Supreme Appellate Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Chief Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

Filing of nomination papers by respondent/candidate found by Supreme Court in earlier round of litigation to be guilty of having managed to get such seat in general election on strength of fake and bogus academic degrees

Acceptance of such nomination papers by Returning Officer

Validity

Respondent before Supreme Court had elected not to defend such allegations and tendered resignation from seat of National Assembly

While discussing conduct of respondent, Supreme Court in its judgment observed "Such-like "House Breaking" tendencies on the part of dishonest and unscrupulous individuals need to be strongly checked before the virus becomes an uncontrollable epidemic"

Such act of respondent not to contest such allegations levelled against him had amounted to a confession of repentance and he could resile from same

Moral and ethical standards of respondent could be gauged from such facts

Person having employed such deception and deceit could not pass test prescribed for a parliamentarian under the Constitution

Provisions of Art. 62(d)(f) of the Constitution, though not being self-executory, could be set in motion on basis of evidence on record and conduct of respondent

Respondent could not pass test of "good character" or of being "righteous, honest or ameen "

Object of Arts. 62 & 63 of the Constitution read with S.99 of Representation of the People Act, 1976 being to guard pious house of chosen representatives of people with a view to save its sanctity, honour and prestige from being tarnished

High Court set aside impugned order and rejected nomination papers of respondent.

Petitioner did not raise any objection regarding schedule of election nor did he seek its postponement on the ground that sufficient time was not allowed to the voters to cast their votes by post

Validity

Dispute having been raised by the petitioner in his objection before the Secretary Health and petitioner having himself chosen not to attend the hearing and press such objection, he could not be allowed to agitate the merit of the decision taken by the Secretary Health.

Election could not be annulled or vitiated in absence of violation of electoral rules/law materially affecting electoral results.

Election Tribunal, having been constituted, election authorities had ceased to have jurisdiction to pass any order, corrigendum or any notification after completion of election process and after notification of results

Such power vests in Election Tribunal to adjudicate upon pre or post elections disputes arising out of elections between contesting candidates or against election authorities for violation of election laws, etc.

Right to cast any kind of vote was, where given by statute, the duty to comply with the conditions laid down, was usually mandatory

Failure to comply, except in an immaterial respect, was to cause the vote to be void.

Process of-Commission of illegalities and irregularities by Returning Officer, Presiding Officer or their subordinates in performance of their duties

Warning to such officials

Actions to be taken against concerned official highlighted.

Proceedings before an Election Tribunal, was quasi-civil and quasi-criminal and any doubt arising therefrom must be extended to returned candidate

In order to prove allegation of corrupt practices in election, same must be specifically pleaded in petition.

Concept.

Election of a "holder of a public office" could not be annulled or the incumbent of an office disqualified, on the basis of the press reports alone.

Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of the candidate as his proposer was himself a candidate for the seat of Nazim

Before the scrutiny, the proposer filed application for withdrawal of his nomination papers

Returning Officer as well as the District Returning Officer did not allow the proposer to withdraw his papers before scrutiny and consequently nomination papers of the candidate were also rejected

High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, allowed the petition and the orders passed by the Authorities were set aside

Validity

No restraint/embargo existed either under the law or in the Rules for a candidate to withdraw his nomination paper before, scrutiny

Where the proposer had withdrawn his candidature prior to the scrutiny same would not come in his way in proposing the candidate

Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by High Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

Substantial amount of money was lying in deposit in account of candidate and was not disclosed by him in the declaration of assets tiled alongwith the nomination papers

Effect

All assets were not declared in compliance with R.16(4) of Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000, which the candidate was obliged to disclose in Form XIX

Where actual assets of the candidate were at variance with his declared assets, the candidate was not qualified to be elected as a member of Local Government in view of S.14(i) of Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000

Leave to appeal was refused.

Construction of election laws be liberally done so that material prejudice likely to be caused on account of glaring jurisdictional defects or excess of authority could be averted.

Joint candidature of the petitioners for the seats of Nazim and Naib-Nazim was rejected by District Returning Officer on the ground that one of the petitioners was Administrator Local Zakat and Ushr Committee and he being a Government employee was disqualified to be a candidate under the provisions of S. 14(g) of Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000

Validity

Person who was a salaried employee of Government or local authority or of corporation set up , owned or controlled by the Government was not eligible to be a member of Local Zakat Committee under the provisions of proviso to S.18(4) of Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980

Very structure of the Committee and consequently the person who was appointed as its administrator in case of its supersession, however, completely ousts a person mentioned in S.14(g) of Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000, from being appointed as a member or an Administrator

Such being the position the District Returning Officer acted without lawful authority while proceeding to reject the papers of the petitioner on ground of his being an Administrator of a Local Zakat Council

Order of District Returning Officer was set aside while that passed by the Returning Officer accepting the papers of the petitioners was restored

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Returning Officer relied on video tape wherein the candidate was shown to be attending a dance party in which he was showering money on the dancing girl

Neither the person was produced before the Returning Officer who had recorded the video, nor any affidavit of the person was produced

Such video film relied upon by the Returning Officer was seen in isolation by the Officer and nomination of the candidate was rejected on the basis of such evidence

Validity

Video film was not a piece of legal evidence and the same could not have been relied upon by the Returning Officer, therefore the order passed by the Officer was based on no evidence

High Court set aside the order of Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner in circumstances.

Petition had been filed jointly by 23 petitioners without showing that as to which one of them was contesting for which" one of the posts and constituency and even the nomination papers proposed to be submitted had not been annexed with the petition

No proof was provided with regard to approaching the District Returning Officer first in order to agitate their grievance

Entire process of scrutiny of nomination papers was over and it would not be in the fitness of things to reverse back the entire process

Constitutional , petition being merit less, was dismissed

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), An. 199.