Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Arts. 4 & 14; Art. 10A (presumption of innocence); Police Rules, 1934, r. 24.5; Police Order, 2002, Art. 10(3); Punjab Right to Public Services Act, 2019, s. 10 - Police Record Certificates (PRCs) and acquittals—Disclosure of non-conviction data—Right to be dealt with in accordance with law and dignity—Held, inclusion in a PRC of any case that has culminated in acquittal, discharge, or cancellation (Category-1 matters) is unconstitutional and unlawful as it offends Arts. 4 and 14 and undermines the presumption of innocence protected by Art. 10A—Such disclosure carries stigma which a “no adverse effect” notation cannot cure—Absent an express statutory framework authorizing calibrated disclosure with safeguards, police cannot publish non-conviction history in PRCs—Directions issued to omit the petitioner’s acquitted case from PRC and to re-issue within ten days; however, preservation of internal records under r. 24.5 remains unaffected. (b) Police administration—Disclosure vs. preservation—Standing Orders/SOPs cannot substitute legislation ----Police Rules, 1934, r. 24.5; Police Order, 2002, Art. 10(3); Punjab Right to Public Services Act, 2019, ss. 4(1), 10 ---- Rule 24.5 mandates preservation of FIR registers and related entries for sixty years; it does not authorize disclosure to third parties through PRCs—IGP’s Standing Order No. 2 of 2024 and related SOPs may regulate internal processes but do not create substantive power to disclose criminal-record information—PRPSA is procedural and applies only to Gazette-notified services; issuance of PRCs (and disclosure of non-conviction data therein) is not shown to be duly notified—Reliance on Art. 10(3) of the Police Order and s. 10 PRPSA to justify PRC disclosures is misplaced. (c) Criminal justice—Effect of acquittal; presumption restored in full ----Art. 10A; Cr.P.C., ss. 249-A, 345(6); Evidence—Standards ---- An acquittal by a competent court confers a “double presumption of innocence” and restores legal and social standing; Pakistani jurisprudence recognizes that all acquittals are honourable, whether on merits or by benefit of doubt; no shades of acquittal—Any State action that re-stigmatizes by publicizing the concluded accusation must meet strict legality, necessity, and proportionality; without statute, Category-1 matters must be excluded from PRCs. Cited: Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Raza (2008 SCMR 329); Chairman ADBP v. Mumtaz Khan (PLD 2010 SC 695); The State v. Abdul Khaliq (PLD 2011 SC 554); Muhammad Bashir v. SHO (PLD 2007 SC 539). (d) Pending cases and convictions—Future legislative path ----Structured disclosure only by statute ---- Pending proceedings (Category-2) may justify calibrated disclosure for narrowly defined, role-specific contexts (e.g., sensitive employment), but only under specific legislation articulating offence classes, relevance, necessity, and proportionality tests—Conviction history (Category-3) likewise requires statutory calibration; blanket, context-free disclosure is inconsistent with contemporary standards of privacy and dignity—Comparative regimes (UK/Australia/US) are statutory and filtered; Pakistan lacks equivalent legislation. (e) Judicial directions in Zulfiqar Ali (PLD 2023 Lahore 512)—Limited scope ---- Directions there concern accuracy and status-updating of records filed in judicial proceedings; they neither address nor authorize disclosure of non-conviction data in PRCs—Reliance on Zulfiqar Ali to justify PRC disclosures is misconceived. (f) Consent and “citizen-driven” issuance—No waiver of fundamental rights---- A PRC sought to satisfy administrative requirements (e.g., visas) is not a voluntary waiver of Arts. 4 or 14—Consent under administrative compulsion cannot validate an otherwise unauthorized disclosure. (g) Comparative law—Inapplicability absent statute ---- UK case law on Enhanced Certificates (e.g., AR v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2018] UKSC 47) operates within a detailed statutory framework (Police Act 1997; statutory guidance; filtering)—Pakistan has no comparable legislative scheme; importing outcomes without statutory footing is impermissible. (h) Maintainability—Ripeness---- Objection of prematurity overruled—The impugned PRC had already been issued for use in a visa process; risk of denial/delay and reputational harm is concrete and immediate; petition is ripe for adjudication. Cited: Mughal-e-Azam Banquet Complex v. Federation (2011 PTD 2260); Sabira Khatoon (2021 PLC (C.S.) 1600); Muhammad Hammad-ur-Rehman Zafar (PLD 2022 Lahore 177). (i) Misstatement in PRC—Correction mandated; dignity engaged---- PRC wrongly recorded acquittal as under s. 494 Cr.P.C. (withdrawal) whereas judicial record shows s. 249-A Cr.P.C. (reasoned acquittal)—This mischaracterization is substantive, not semantic; it diminishes the judicial nature of exoneration and offends dignity—Correction directed. (j) Record deletion vs. non-disclosure ---- Prayer to delete petitioner’s name from PSRMS/CRMS declined—Police are bound to preserve FIR indexes and case outcomes for sixty years under r. 24.5—Constitutional protection is achieved by prohibiting public disclosure of Category-1 matters in PRCs, not by erasing lawful internal records—This does not preclude disclosure when specifically required by statute or court order. (k) Service/disciplinary proceedings—Autonomy preserved---- Exclusion of acquitted matters from PRCs does not bar permissible departmental action under service law/Police Rules (e.g., r. 16.3) where independently warranted; standards and objectives differ from criminal adjudication. Cited: Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. IGP Punjab (2023 PLC (C.S.) 884). (g) Disposition — Petition allowed to this extent: Respondents shall, within ten days of receipt of certified copy, issue a revised PRC to the petitioner omitting any reference to FIR No. 570/2016 and correctly reflecting her status; preservation and annotation of internal police records under r. 24.5 remain intact; nothing herein precludes disclosure where specifically mandated by statute or court order; no order as to costs. Cited cases (select): • Waqas Khan v. The State (PLD 2025 Peshawar 67) • Zulfiqar Ali v. Ex officio Justice of Peace (PLD 2023 Lahore 512) • Jawwad S. Khawaja v. Federation (PLD 2024 SC 337) • Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Raza (2008 SCMR 329) • Chairman ADBP v. Mumtaz Khan (PLD 2010 SC 695) • Muhammad Bashir v. SHO (PLD 2007 SC 539) • Mughal-e-Azam Banquet Complex (2011 PTD 2260) • Muhammad Hammad-ur-Rehman Zafar (PLD 2022 Lahore 177) • AR v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2018] UKSC 47

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 05.04.2021 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 2019 and Confirmation case No. 40 of 2019). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---CCTV footage on the record---Inconsequential---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by striking a cemented block on his head---Crucially, no site plan aligned the camera's field of view with the locus in quo---There was no proof of continuous recording, time-sync or system clocks nor any demonstration that the footage was free from edits or overlays---There was no forensic report with respect to the veracity of the footage---Even on its face, the footage was equivocal; resolution, angles and lighting did not permit positive identification beyond reasonable doubt; it neither captured the actus reus nor theweapon and at best suggested presence in a shared space, already a neutral circumstance---Deposition of the various witnesses alleging that the accused was seen on camera carrying the cinderblock with which he murdered the deceased, was also shrouded with doubts and mysteries as, according to witness, the CCTV footage only captured the accused carrying "a heavy thing", the description of which could not be given due to the darkness whereas according to the other witnesses, accused-petitioner was allegedly carrying a "cement block"---Such wavering depositions put a major dent in the case of the prosecution---Moreover, it had also come on record that whenever the USB was attempted to be played, the Court computer flagged it as virus-infected---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charges. Ch. Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia and another 1992 SCMR 1047 and Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another 2008 SCMR 1103 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Last seen evidence---Scope---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by striking a cemented block on his head---In the present case, the "last-seen together" circumstance was equally frail---For it to acquire probative value, the prosecution must have established with clarity (i) the specific point in time when the deceased was last alive in the company of the accused, and (ii) a narrow temporal gap between that point and the discovery of the body so as to exclude intervention by others---Neither requisite was satisfied---Common accommodation with multiple persons having ready access to each other, undermined the value of the "last seen" evidence---Testimony deposed by last seen witness set up as proof of the petitioner's guilt again did not aid the assertion of "last seen" since he only stated that around 12:30 a.m. he had seen the petitioner alone in the washroom and, upon returning, saw him asleep in his bed---In such circumstances, an inference that the petitioner alone could have committed the act would be speculative at best and that fact remained a neutral circumstance that might arouse suspicion but could not shoulder the evidentiary burden needed for a conviction especially when it had come on record that room of deceased was shared by some 25 students---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charges. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Recovery of bloodstained knife from petitioner’s bed underneath his pillow---Inconsequential---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by striking a cemented block on his head---Record revealed that a blood stained knife was recovered from petitioner's bed underneath his pillow---Said very knife was sent for chemical examination and returned with a positive result for traces of human blood---Interestingly, however, the medical evidence mentioned no injuries attributable to the blade, instead only highlighting injuries sustained as a result of a heavy object falling on the deceased's skull, the cinderblock---Said fact added another doubt in the plethora contained in the prosecution case---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charges. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by striking a cemented block on his head---There was no record or proof of the petitioner allegedly teasing or having quarreled with the deceased, in fact, one of the witnesses, stated that "the deceased and the accused were close friends and that fact was disclosed to him by other students---Moreover, none of the students had deposed that the accused and the deceased had any quarrel with each other in the past---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charges. Ms. Ambreen Anwar Raja, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in J.P. No. 217 of 2021). Israr Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant (in J.P. No. 217 of 2021 and Petitioner in Crl.P. No. 372 of 2022). Sher Aman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2 (in Crl. P. No. 372 of 2022). Khadim Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Date of hearing: 27th October, 2025.

Summary: (On appeal against the order/judgment dated 19.06.2014 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. No. 1147 of 2008). Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S.13---Pre-emption---Talb-i-Muwathibat (immediate demand/jumping demand), execution of---The sole issue was whether the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) proved immediate declaration (Talb-i-Muwathibat) as required by law---Pre-emptor to prove execution of talbs---Onus---Doubt in execution of talbs---Effect---Any doubt regarding proper performance of talbs must be resolved in favour of the vendee---The case concerned a parcel of land which was sold to the petitioners/vendees through a registered sale deed---The respondent/plaintiff claimed a superior right of pre-emption, alleging that he had performed the required talbs (formal declarations) and stated that upon learning of the sale at 7:00 a.m. on 7 June 2001 from “UD” in the presence of another witness, he made a declaration to exercise his right---The courts below accepted his version and decreed the suit, but the Supreme Court examined whether the Talb-i-Muwathibat i.e. the immediate demand, was duly and validly performed by the respondent/plaintiff (pre-emptor) so as to sustain his right of pre-emption---Held: The onus was on the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) to substantiate his claims by producing compelling evidence that demonstrated the completion of Talb-i-Muwathibat---Statement of witness (informer) produced by plaintiff/pre-emptor suggested that enough time had passed between when the witness (informer) first learnt of the sale and when he relayed this information to the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor)---Consequently, it undermined the assertion that the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) made the declaration at the stated time---This doubt created uncertainty on whether the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) truly executed the Talb-i-Muwathibat as claimed---Respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) upon gaining awareness of the sale, did not immediately formally declared his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption, but merely expressed a desire to do so---This was not sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act of 1991---If any doubt arose regarding the execution of the talbs, the benefit of that doubt must favour the vendee---Given these circumstances, the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) had failed to prove the execution of Talb-i-Muwathibat---The judgments and decrees rendered by the courts below were set aside, and the suit brought forth by the respondent-plaintiff (pre-emptor) was dismissed---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, in circumstances. Sh. Usman Karim-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (Through Video Link Lahore). Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th October, 2025.

Summary: ----Ss.5, Sched., 12A, 17A & 21A---Dependent parent claiming maintenance from sons---Jurisdiction of family court---Scope---Competence to entertain and adjudicate parental maintenance claims---Striking off defence---Penal provision---Strict construction---Impermissibility in suits filed by parents---Briefly, respondent- mother instituted a suit before the family court seeking maintenance from her sons on the ground of dependency and lack of independent income---During pendency of the proceedings, the family court fixed interim maintenance and directed payment by the 14th of each month---Upon alleged non-payment, the family court struck off the defence under S.17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 while decreeing the suit and initiating coercive proceedings---The appeal against said orders was dismissed by the district court leading to the filing of the constitutional petition---Pivotal questions requiring determination before the High Court were as to “whether a parent could institute a suit for maintenance against children before the family court”?; and, “whether S.17A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 was applicable to maintenance claims filed by parents”?---Held: Claim of maintenance by dependent parents against their sons, being a family dispute rooted in familial obligations, squarely fell within the domain of “family affairs” and was, therefore, well within the jurisdiction of the family court---As statutory provisions did not expressly define the nature of relationship between the person claiming maintenance and the party against whom maintenance was sought; principles of Islamic law which were the primary source governing family relations had to be applied---Under Islamic jurisprudence, the obligation of sons to maintain their dependent parents squarely fell within the scope of maintenance---Family Court possessed jurisdiction to decide all ancillary issues necessary for complete and effective adjudication of disputes within its domain---The ‘Schedule’ to the Family Courts Act, 1964 was inclusive and had to be interpreted purposively to advance the true spirit and objective of the statute---A mother or father, if left dependent and without means, could competently invoke jurisdiction of the family court to seek maintenance from their sons---Section 17-A was not attracted to the present dispute wherein a mother had sought maintenance from her sons---However, the authority to pass a final decree for maintenance inherently included the power to grant interim relief pendente lite as an ancillary or necessary measure to prevent destitution during litigation, therefore, the family court was fully empowered to fix and direct the payment of interim maintenance during the pendency of a suit filed by any parent and enforce such judicial orders---Impugned orders of the courts below were set aside and the matter was remanded to the family court to decide the same afresh---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched.---Dependent mother seeking maintenance from sons---Jurisdiction of family court---Scope---A mother, if left dependent and without sufficient means, may competently invoke the jurisdiction of the family court to seek maintenance from her sons. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Objection not raised through a specific prayer in a constitutional petition, non-entertaining of---Scope---If an objection had not been pressed through any specific prayer in a constitutional petition before the High Court, then any adjudication on such factual controversy at that stage may effectively result in High Court assuming the role of a court of first instance, thereby, prejudicing the right of appeal of the party who may feel aggrieved by such determination---Thus, findings on such a factual objection should be eschewed and the matter should left open to be examined and decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law. Muhammad Faizan-ur-Rehman for Petitioner. Sami Ullah Azeem for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Muhammad Umar Sheikh for Respondent No. 5 Amicus Curiae: Muhammad Saad Khan. Date of hearing: 27th October, 2025.

Summary: (a) National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (XXX of 2016)--- ----S. 21---National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (Service) Regulations, 2021---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Declaration---Petitioner assailed appointment of respondent to the post of Director Strategy Management Office---Plea raised by authorities was that petition was not maintainable as post in question was non-statutory---Validity---Relief claimed was declaration that actions of authorities leading to creation of post in question and hiring of respondent to such office were illegal and ultra vires the provisions of National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act, 2016 and National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Service Regulations, 2021---Objection that office in question was not a public office was irrelevant---Objection was overruled in circumstances. Ghulam Murtaza v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 PLC (C.S) 1188 rel. (b) National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (XXX of 2016)--- ----S. 21---National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (Service) Regulations, 2021---Notification SRO No.346(I)/2024 dated 25-01-2024---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Aggrieved person---Scope---Principle of locus poenitentiae---Applicability---Petitioner assailed appointment of respondent to the post of Director Strategy Management Office---Plea raised by authorities was that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person, therefore, petition was not maintainable---Validity---Recruitment process was tailored for such purpose and respondent was appointed as Director SMO without written test and transparent recruitment process such as the one that petitioner participated in, and the respondent was appointed to a post higher than that held by petitioner---Petitioner qualified the test of an aggrieved person for the purposes of Art. 199 of the Constitution---Creation of post in question without approval of Board, prescriptions of TORs for such post prescribing a minimum age less than the age prescribed for the office of Director in NPG-1 under National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (Service) Regulations, 2021, act of publishing Amended Regulations in the Official Gazette without presenting the same to NEECA Board and seeking its approval, together with stand-alone manner in which recruitment for the post of Director SMO was carried out in contrast to other posts during phase-1 of recruitment in NEECA involving IBA, all of which cumulatively tainted the recruitment process---Recruitment criteria and maximum age for the post of Director Strategy Management Office were prescribed in a mala fide manner to tailor recruitment process to benefit certain individual---Post of Director SMO was never legally created and terms and conditions for such position were never prescribed---Appointment of respondent was illegal, who had discharged services against the post of Director Strategy Management Office---Doctrine of locus poenitentiae could not protect illegal appointment of respondent---High Court declined to make any order regarding recovery which could not be affected from respondent for services that he had discharged while holding the office prior to issuance of a declaration that his appointment was illegal---High Court declared appointment of respondent together with creation of post of Director Strategy Management Office to be unlawful and of no legal effect---High Court also declared that Notification SRO No.346(I)/2024 dated 25-01-2024 was devoid of legal authority having never been approved by the NEECA Board---High Court directed that management of NEECA should not continue to act in breach of National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority Act, 2016 and National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (Service) Regulations, 2021---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Ghulam Murtaza v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 PLC (C.S) 1188; Shahid Mehmood v. BISP (2024 PLC (C.S) 1103; Engineer-in-Chief Branch v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207; Shams-ur-Rehman v. Military Accountant General 2020 SCMR 188; Mst. Sajida Javed v. Director of Secondary Education 2007 PLC (C.S.) 364 and Shahbaz Latif v. DIG Pakistan Railways Headquarters PLD 2025 SC 560 rel. Raja Adnan Aslam for Petitioner. Fahad Khan Tareen, Assistant Attorney General. Jameel Hussain Qureshi along with Ali Ata Hashmi, Assistant Director, National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. Qamar ul Haq Khan Niazi for Respondent No.4. Zafar Ullah Khan, Law Officer, Power Division. Date of hearing: 7th May, 2025.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 199 & 212---Civil service---Disciplinary proceeding against civil servant, challenging of--- Invoking const itutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Mala fide alleged by civil servant---Effect---Petitioner (Officer Inland Revenue) challenged the Fact Finding Inquiry Report recommending disciplinary proceeding alleging that ongoing disciplinary proceeding was tainted with mala fide---Arguments of the petitioner, invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, was that no final order was passed, hence, no department remedy was available---Validity---As per the Fact Finding Inquiry Report disciplinary action against the petitioner had been recommended together with other officials of the respondents-FBR, including Commissioners and Additional Commissioners ; which (the second set of proceeding) initiated by respondents-FBR eventually was under challenge before the concerned forum---Constitutional bar under Art.212 of the constitution will exclude judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, if the issue was about the terms and conditions of service of any civil servant---Argument of the petitioner (that no final order was passed, hence, no department remedy was available) was also not tenable, because, disciplinary proceeding being sub judice had not been concluded---No justification to interfere in the ongoing disciplinary proceeding was made out, however, competent authority shall conclude the disciplinary proceeding expeditiously, and should take into account the factors raised---Petition was disposed of. Ahmad Ullah and others v. District Education Officer (Male), Buner and others 2024 SCMR 2004 ref. M.A. Rahman v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1988 SCMR 691 and Syed Muhammad Abbas Rizvi and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and others 2014 PLC (C.S.) 1363 distinguished. Zamir Hussain Ghumro and Faizan Hussain Memon for Petitioner. Muhammad Akbar Khan, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan for Respondent No.1. Mukesh Kumar Khatri for Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 16th October, 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Employee of District judiciary---Disciplinary proceedings---Show-cause notice, assailing of---Constitutional petition--Maintainability---Petitioner was alleged to have secured employment on the basis of forged documents---Petitioner assailed final show-cause notice issued to him by authorities during departmental disciplinary proceedings---Validity---Show-cause notice, whether initial or final, was not amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction unless it was shown to be a nullity in law---Issuance of show-cause notice was a procedural step intended to afford the employee an opportunity to explain his conduct and did not by itself constitute adverse determination of rights---Constitutional Courts do not sit as appellate forums over departmental inquiries---Petitioner was to exhaust remedies available under service rules, including right to reply, personal hearing and appeal, when the adverse order was passed---Premature judicial intervention undermined disciplinary framework and set a deleterious precedent for circumventing lawful accountability---Mere show-cause notice filed at a stage when no final determination had been made, failed to meet threshold of maintainability under Art. 199 of the Constitution---High Court declined to interfere in the matter as it was premature, misconceived, legally deficient and factually unsubstantiated---High Court directed the competent authority to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry strictly in accordance with the law, ensuring due process and affording petitioner a fair defence opportunity---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. (b) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)--- ----S.21---Locus poenitentiae, principle of---Scope---Provision of S. 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897, provides a statutory basis for revisiting prior administrative orders---Power to issue orders includes power to amend, vary, or rescind them, provided such exercise is undertaken in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as the original order---Provision of S. 21 General Clauses Act, 1897 empowers competent authority to reopen a matter where new and credible evidence emerges, especially in fraud or misrepresentation cases. Muhammad Ali Pirzado for Petitioner. Liaquat Ali Shar, Additional Advocate, General for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th October, 2025.

Summary: Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules, 2013--- ----R.63(7)---Elections for the post of Chairman, District Council---Tie in votes between the two candidates---Draw of lots to determine outcome in tied-vote election---Scope---Plea that in event of tie of votes each successful candidate will serve a half-term---Legality---Brief facts were that the petitioner filed present constitutional petition challenging the notification, whereby, respondent No.5 was declared the Chairman, District Council, arising out of local government elections conducted under the Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules, 2013, where the petitioner and Respondent No.5 had polled equal votes and the Returning Officer held a draw of lots---Question for determination before the High Court was as to “whether, in a tied-vote election, the draw of lots could lawfully decide a single winner for the full term under the 2013 Rules?”---Held: In case of equal votes between the contested candidates for the Chairman of the District Council, the returning officer had to conduct a draw of lots in presence of witnesses---Returning officer was further required to record the procedure in the election register, obtaining the signatures and thumb impressions of the candidates as proof that the draw was conducted transparently and in their presence---Consequently, the winning candidate was to be elected for the full term---Petitioners plea/claim lacked legal foundation---No infirmity or perversity was found in the election process---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Habib-ur-Rehman Baloch for Petitioner. Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Additional A.G., Anwar Naseem Kasi, D.A.G. and Ali Jan Tarak, Law Officer, Provincial Election Commissioner, Quetta for Official Respondents. Shabbir Ahmed Sherani for Respondent No. 5. Date of hearing: 6th October, 2025.