Summary: The appellant, represented by Mr. Nadeem Iqbal Chaudhary, challenged the rejection of nomination papers based on section 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017. The candidates had declared a joint bank account instead of separate accounts. The appeal, along with connected appeals, raised the question of whether the provision is mandatory.Mr. Chaudhary argued that section 60(2)(b) is not mandatory, as it lacks penal consequences. He contended that the purpose is to open or dedicate an account, and the term 'exclusive' doesn't necessarily mean a separate account for each independent candidate. On the contrary, the Election Commission argued that an exclusive account is mandatory to prevent violation of expenditure restrictions, with serious consequences.Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, after considering the arguments, referred to relevant sections of the Act, emphasizing the recent amendment requiring a candidate to open or dedicate an exclusive account. The judge highlighted the importance of individual compliance to ensure scrutiny of election expenses within legal limits. The judgment held that a joint account is against the legislative intent and rationality, making verification difficult for the Election Commission.Despite the appellants' submission of applications post-rejection, the judge noted non-compliance with the Act's criteria. No substantial compliance was demonstrated, with the absence of bank statements. Consequently, the appeal and related ones were dismissed, upholding the impugned orders without costs.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Before adjudging the validity of the objection or the propriety of the impugned order, it would be advantageous to first have an overview of the provisions of law prescribing disqualifications for membership of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). To this effect first of the series is Article 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (reproduced). Adverting to the ground that the appellant is proclaimed offender as per report of the District Police Officer, Attock. It is manifestly clear that mere registration of a criminal case against a candidate or his purported abscondence would not impede as disqualification in his way to contest the election. Reliance in this respect can be placed on Sheikh MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 19 others (2016 SCMR 733). 5. So far failure by the appellant, her proposer and seconder to appear before the "R.O." is concerned, suffice to observe that Chapter V of the "Act, 2017" deals with the conduct of elections of the assemblies. Section 60 of the Act ibid provides the manner for nomination for election. In terms whereof, the appellant submitted her nomination papers whereas Sajjad Haider Khan and Muhammad Rafique Khan stood her proposer and seconder, respectively. Section 62 of the "Act, 2017" provides the procedure for scrutiny of nomination papers and in terms of sub-section (1) any voter of a constituency may file objections to the candidature of a candidate of that constituency who has been nominated or whose name has been included in the party list submitted by a political party for election to an Assembly before the "R.O." within the period specified by the Election Commission for the scrutiny of nomination papers of candidates contesting election to an Assembly.

Summary: The term "default" used in Article 63 of the "Constitution" is though nowhere defined in the "Constitution", however, in the case of IRFAN GUL MAGSI v. Haji ABDUL KHALIQ SOOMRO and others (1999 PTD 1302), Election Tribunal Sindh outlined the definition of "default" in the following terms: - (Para 11 of the judgment). After having an overview of the principles laid down hereinabove, it can safely be inferred that the word "default" used in Article 63 of the "Constitution" does not import ordinary meaning rather it connotes an element of willful and deliberate failure to fulfil an obligation and negligence in the performance of the duty. In the case of MUHAMMAD JAMSHED v. ELECTION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others (2018 CLC 1330) a learned Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar proposition held in Para.11 and 12.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending