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.'' --- The rejection was based on several grounds, including Eman Waseem being declared a "Proclaimed Offender" as per a letter from the District Police Officer, Attock, and a Baluchistan High Court judgment. Additionally, the absence of the candidate, proposer, and seconder during scrutiny raised concerns about the validity of their signatures. It was noted that Eman Waseem, despite owning land, had not deposited Agricultural Income Tax (AIT) in the government treasury.On January 4, 2024, Mirza Viqas Rauf delivered the judgment, addressing these grounds. The court clarified that the mere registration of a criminal case or the candidate's purported abscondence does not automatically disqualify them from elections, citing precedent (Sheikh MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 19 others, 2016 SCMR 733). Regarding the absence during scrutiny, the judgment emphasized that the presence of proposer and seconder is optional, and rejection solely on this ground was not justified.The judgment highlighted the Returning Officer's power to reject nomination papers if signatures are not genuine but noted that no summary inquiry had been conducted to verify the signatures. It also questioned the objector's standing and suggested possible collaboration between the objector and the appellant's adversaries.Acknowledging the complaint of highhandedness by law enforcement agencies preventing the appellant from contesting the election, an offer was made to produce the proposer and seconder with necessary protection. The judgment set aside the R.O.'s order and accepted Eman Waseem's nomination papers. The court directed the copy of the judgment to be transmitted to the R.O. for compliance.

Summary: The rejection was based on two grounds: the registration of FIR No. 322 of 2023 against the appellant and his alleged default in Land-Based Agriculture Tax. --- The judgment highlighted that no proceedings under section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against the appellant. The court deemed the rejection based on the alleged absconsion of the appellant as incorrect, citing a Supreme Court precedent, specifically the case titled ?Muhammad Afzal Khan Dhandla and 03 Others Versus Election Tribunal and Others? (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 959).Additionally, the judgment emphasized that the cases cited by the respondents were distinguishable, as no proceedings under section 87 and 88 of the Code had been taken against the appellant.The court also scrutinized the second ground for rejection related to the default in agriculture tax payment. It noted discrepancies in the assessment and lack of proper notice to the appellant. Relying on relevant case laws, such as ?Abdul Sattar Bachani Versus Returning Officer and 04 Others? (2019 MLD 541) and ?Syed Shafqat Hussain Shah Versus Returning Officer and another? (2019 YLR 643), the court concluded that the rejection was based on an erroneous assumption of facts and incorrect exposition of law.As a result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and accepted the nomination papers of the appellant for NA-174(VI), Rahim Yar Khan, PP-265(XI), and PP-266(XII), Rahim Yar Khan.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a former prime minister of Pakistan and chairman of a leading political party, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) to allow the broadcast/rebroadcast of his speeches and press talks on electronic media. PEMRA had issued a Prohibition Order on 05.03.2023, banning the coverage of the petitioner on electronic media. The petitioner appealed against the Prohibition Order, and the court suspended the operation of the order, referring the matter to a full bench to ascertain the appropriate court's jurisdiction. ----Issues: 1- Whether PEMRA's Prohibition Order was valid and enforceable. 2- Whether the petitioner was unlawfully censored on electronic media, violating the Code of Conduct for media channels. 3- Whether the petitioner’s right to media coverage, especially during the pre-election period, was being unjustly restricted. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --PEMRA's Position: PEMRA's counsel stated that no further instructions were issued to TV channels regarding the petitioner’s coverage. PEMRA made a statement that it would not hinder the broadcast of live or recorded programs concerning the petitioner or his political party. The court acknowledged the petitioner's claims that his media coverage was being censored. The Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct, 2015, mandates that media channels present information accurately and fairly, ensuring political programs are objective and inclusive. The court emphasized the significance of providing the public with accurate information about candidates and political parties, especially during election periods. --Significance of Free and Fair Elections: The court highlighted the importance of free and fair elections, noting that citizens must have access to multiple sources of information to make informed choices. It stressed that the government and its agencies must not prevent media coverage of political parties or candidates to ensure a fair pre-election environment. The court allowed the petitioner’s application to include additional documents and a USB in the record. It was concluded that PEMRA must not prevent media coverage of the petitioner, ensuring adherence to the Code of Conduct and democratic norms. ----Citations/Precedents: Dr. Shahid Masood and others v. Federation of Pakistan etc. 2010 SCMR 1849 Reference was made to this case to support the petitioner’s urgency and the need for media coverage in the context of upcoming elections. Academic Articles: "Elections Without Democracy" by Andreas Schedler, Journal of Democracy, John Hopkins University Press, Volume 13, Number 2, April 2002. "The Rise of Election Monitoring: What Makes Elections Free and Fair?" by J. Elklit and Palle Svensson, Journal of Democracy, John Hopkins University Press, Volume 8, Number 3, July 1997.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Background: The petitioners, leaders of a political party, filed a constitutional petition challenging an order issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on 22.12.2023. The order declared the party ineligible to obtain the election symbol "BAT" due to non-compliance with intra-party election requirements. ----Issues: 1- Whether the ECP had jurisdiction to declare internal appointments of the political party as void. 2- Whether the ECP's order violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 17 and 25 of the Constitution. 3- Whether the High Court could intervene in a matter pending before the Supreme Court and another High Court. 4- Whether the fundamental right of freedom of association was infringed by the ECP's order. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Jurisdiction of ECP: The court found that the ECP had the authority under the Elections Act, 2017, to ensure compliance with intra-party election requirements and could declare a party ineligible for election symbols if non-compliant. --Violation of Fundamental Rights: The court noted that the right to contest elections under a common symbol could not be arbitrarily taken away. However, it held that the ECP's order was within its legal mandate. --Intervention by High Court: The court emphasized that the Supreme Court had already taken cognizance of the timely conduct of general elections and had issued directives. Additionally, the matter was also pending before the Peshawar High Court. Therefore, the Lahore High Court declined to intervene to avoid conflicting judgments and maintain judicial propriety. --Freedom of Association: The court observed that the petitioners had not challenged the vires of the relevant sections of the Elections Act, 2017. Without such a challenge, the relief claimed could not be granted. The petition was dismissed in limine as it was not maintainable at this stage, given the pendency of similar proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Peshawar High Court. The court relied on the doctrine of "Limine Control" to dismiss the petition. ----Citations/Precedents: Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan vs. Federation of Pakistan (2023 SCP 337) Election Commission of Pakistan vs. Barrister Umair Khan Niazi (Civil Petition No.4365 of 2023) Gul Khan vs. Saeed Ur Rehman (2023 SCP 394) Mubashir Javed vs. Province of Punjab (PLD 2022 Lahore 817) Water and Sanitation Agency, Lahore vs. Lottee Akhtar Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore (2019 SCMR 1146) Dr. Mubashir Hassan vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 80) Federation of Pakistan vs. Aitzaz Ahsan (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 61) Azee Securities (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Federation of Pakistan (2019 PTD 903) Chempak (Pvt.) Limited vs. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (2003 P L C 380)

Summary: Regarding enforced disappearances --- The Federal Government was directed to submit undertakingin writing, signed by senior most officers of the concernedministries, that henceforth no one shall be picked up other than inaccordance with the law. --- During the hearing it was brought to the attention of the court thatduring the Court?s winter vacations the families of protestingmissing persons at Islamabad were manhandled by police/lawenforcement personnel --- ''This Court takes great exception to suchhigh handedness because the right to peaceful protest is amongstthe guaranteed Fundamental Rights which must be honourd inletter and spirit.'' Supreme Court has already held that:?Every citizen and political party has the right toassemble and protest provided such assembly andprotest is peaceful and complies with the lawimposing reasonable restrictions in the interest ofpublic order. The right to assemble and protest iscircumscribed only to the extent that it infringes onthe fundamental rights of others, including theirright to free movement and to hold and enjoyproperty.? --- ''Therefore, the Commission is directed tocollate and submit: (a) the names with parentage and addresses ofthose who went missing, (b) name and relationship of the personwho reported the missing person, (c) the date they went missing,(d) those who were in government in the Federation and theconcerned province at that time, (e) whether the missing personwas recovered or not, and (f) if not recovered the efforts, if any,taken to find out the whereabouts of the missing person. Inaddition, (g) all those in respect of whom production orders wereissued but were not produced, and (h) what was the follow-up bythe Commission when its production orders were not compliedwith.''

Summary: Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)- -Ss. 51(1) & 62-Returning Officer of a constituency changed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) on medical grounds-Single Judge of High Court passing an ad-interim ex-parte order suspending the notification of ECP whereby the returning officer was changed-Legality-ECP, for justifiable reasons, had issued the notification substituting the returning officer-It is also the responsibility of the ECP to conduct elections-Moreover, no allegation against the newly appointed returning officer was made-Therefore, it cannot be stated that the exercise of discretion by the ECP was in any manner illegal or unconstitutional-Supreme Court observed with concern that an ad interim ex-parte order was passed by the Judge of the High Court without issuance of notice to or hearing the ECP; which would adversely affect the election programme and jeopardise the elections to be held in the said constituency-Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and allowed; the impugned order was set-aside with the directions that since the stipulated date for the scrutiny of nomination papers of candidates could not be completed on account of the ad-interim ex-parte order, the scrutiny of the nomination papers of candidates, including the respondents, whose scrutiny of nomination papers had not taken place be undertaken as per the given fresh schedule.