Summary: (a) Interpretation of Constitution--- ----Redundancy---Effect should be given to every word, paragraph, clause and article of the Constitution---Redundancy should not be imported thereto. (b) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)--- ----Ss. 4 & 104---Election Rules, 2017, Rr. 92 & 94---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 51(6)(d), 199 & 224---Constitutional petition---Reserved seat, allocation of--- Entitlement---Petitioner was a political party which did not participate in General Elections---Independent returned candidates, backed by another political party which was not allowed to participate in elections by Election Commission of Pakistan, joined the petitioner party---Petitioner party claimed its right to allocation of reserved seats---Validity---Reserved seats for women and non-Muslims under the mandate of Art. 51(6)(d) of the Constitution, were to be allocated amongst the political parties present in National Assembly---Procedure for allocation of such seats has been provided under S. 104 of Elections Act, 2017 and mechanism for its allocation under Rr. 92 & 94 of Election Rules, 2017 respectively---Election Commission was a Constitutional body invested with mandate to conduct elections to Assemblies and to ensure the same was conduced in accordance with the letter of Constitution---It has the jurisdiction under S. 4 of Elections Act, 2017, to issue directions or orders as were necessary for the performance of its functions and duties, including order for doing complete justice in any matter pending before it--- Order of Election Commission of allocating/distributing reserved seats for women and non-Muslims amongst the political parties that were present in Assembly by securing seats through contest was held to be in accordance with the letter of Art. 51 of the Constitution---Petitioner party was not entitled for any share in reserved seats for women, therefore, request for filing list of candidates for reserved seats at a belated stage did not arise---Petitioner party assailed interpretation of S. 104 of Elections Act, 2017 done by Election Commission of Pakistan which was not a substantive provision rather it merely provided a mechanism for effective conduct of election---High Court declined to interfere in allocation of reserved seats--- Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Asghar Hussain v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 1968 SC 387; The Federal Government v. Ayan Ali and others 2017 SCMR 1179; Messrs Al-Iblagh Limited, Lahore v. The Copyright Board Karachi and others 1985 SCMR 758; LPG Association of Pakistan through Chairman v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and others 2009 CLD 1498; District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2015 SC 401; Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416; Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan through President and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior Islamabad and others PLD 2023 SC 42 and Abul A'la Maudoodi v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 673 rel. (c) Interpretation of Constitution--- ----Written Constitution---Object, purpose and scope---Written Constitution is an organic document designed and intended to cater needs for all times to come--- Such Constitution is like a living tree, it grows and blossoms with the passage of time in order to keep pace with the growth of the country and its people--- Approach, while interpreting a Constitutional provision, should be dynamic, progressive and oriented with desire to meet a situation or suppress a mischief, which has arisen effectively---Interpretation cannot be narrow and pedantic but Court's effort should be to construe the same broadly, so that it may be able to meet requirements of an ever changing society---General words cannot be construed in isolation but the same are to be construed in the context in whic

Summary: ----Issues:Whether the non-attestation of nomination papers by the Jail Superintendent, in spite of a court order, was a valid ground for rejection.Whether the legibility of the CNIC copy and the absence of the husband's Statement of Assets and Liabilitie

Summary: Background:Mian Shabir Asmail, an advocate of the Lahore High Court, filed a constitutional petition challenging the validity of section 232(2) of the Election Act, 2017, which limits disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution to a maximum of five years. The petitioner argued that this provision is unconstitutional as it conflicts with the Supreme Court's rulings in the Sami Ullah Baloch case and others, which interpreted disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) as permanent.-----Issues:Whether section 232(2) of the Election Act, 2017, which limits the duration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution to five years, is ultra vires and unconstitutional.The interpretation and application of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution in light of the Supreme Court's previous rulings, especially considering the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Supreme Court, in a subsequent judgment (Hamza Rasheed Khan v. Election Appellate Tribunal, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others), had overruled its previous decision in the Sami Ullah Baloch case. The Court found that Article 62(1)(f) does not inherently entail a lifetime disqualification and that the Constitution does not authorize the judiciary to rewrite laws or insert provisions into them. The Court also emphasized the importance of Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 17(2), which entails the right to participate in the political process. Consequently, section 232(2) of the Election Act, 2017, was found not to be in derogation of Fundamental Rights or inconsistent with the Constitution.----Citations/Precedents:Sami Ullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nausherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405): Initially interpreted Article 62(1)(f) disqualifications as permanent.Hamza Rasheed Khan v. Election Appellate Tribunal, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others: Overruled the decision in Sami Ullah Baloch, clarifying that Article 62(1)(f) does not impose a lifetime disqualification and emphasizing the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature.Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan: Recognized the right to contest elections as a Fundamental Right under Article 17(2) of the Constitution.Javed Jabbar v. Federation of Pakistan: Affirmed the significance of Fundamental Rights in the political participation of citizens.Election Commission v. Pakistan Tehreek-e Insaf: Highlighted the fundamental nature of the right to form political parties and participate in elections under Article 17(2).Dr. Mobashir Hassan case: Noted that Article 62(1)(f) is not self-executory and requires legislative action to be implemented.Ishaq Khan Khakwani case: Raised questions about the procedural aspects and implications of disqualifications under Article 62(1)(f).

Summary: Background:Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against the Election Commission of Pakistan and other respondents, challenging the legality of a recount order dated 22.02.2024 for the National Assembly constituency NA-154 Lodhran-I.-----Issues:Whether the Election Commission could order a recount after the declaration of election results.Whether the recount order violated principles of natural justice by not notifying the petitioner.Whether the writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against the actions of the Election Commission.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, finding:The Election Commission's order for a recount was beyond its jurisdiction as defined by the Elections Act, especially after the election results were finalized and the petitioner was declared the returned candidate.The recount order was issued without providing notice to the petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice.The writ petition was maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution, as no other adequate legal remedy was available to the petitioner.----Citations/Precedents:Article 199 of the Constitution: Provides the basis for high courts to enforce legal rights when no other adequate remedy is available.Section 95 and 98 of the Elections Act, 2017: Detail the procedures for consolidating election results and the powers of the Election Commission concerning recounts.Zulfiqar Ali Bhatti v. Election Commission of Pakistan and others: Discussed the concurrent jurisdiction of the Election Commission and Election Tribunals and the conditions under which the Commission may order a re-poll.Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge: Established that the High Court can intervene in election matters when no other legal remedy is available, and the action challenged is without jurisdiction or patently illegal.

Summary: ''Detailed reasons for holding that Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is not a self-executory provision and for overruling Sami Ullah Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nausherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405) with Justice Mansoor Ali Shah's opinion.'' ---- Issue:Does the lifetime disqualification for electoral candidacy under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution align with the Constitution itself, especially in light of Section 232(2) of the Elections Act 2017, which prescribes a maximum disqualification period of five years?

Summary: Issue: Whether the grievances concerning discrepancies between Form-47 and Form-45 results should be addressed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) under the Elections Act, 2017, and what remedies are available to the petitioners.---Holding: The High Court disposed of the Constitutional Petitions, directing the petitioners to take their complaints to the Election Commission of Pakistan in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the Elections Act, 2017, and other relevant provisions.---Reasoning: The court recognized the availability of an alternate remedy under the Elections Act, 2017, and the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. It instructed that the complaints regarding discrepancies between Form-45 and Form-47 should be considered by the ECP, which is to decide on these matters expeditiously through speaking orders before the issuance of the notification as per Section 98(1) of the Elections Act, 2017. The resolution of issues concerning the consolidation of results and discrepancies between the forms is to be undertaken by the ECP after scrutinizing the records and subject to verification. The decision(s) will be made in compliance with Articles 218 and 224 of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Elections Act, 2017 and the Elections Rules, 2017. The court also noted that aggrieved parties have the liberty to seek further remedy as available under the Elections Act, 2017, by approaching the relevant forum, including tribunals constituted for such purposes, in accordance with the law.---Legal Principles Applied:Elections Act, 2017: Sections 8 and 9 outline the procedure for filing complaints to the ECP regarding election-related grievances.--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: Articles 218 and 224 provide the constitutional basis for the conduct of elections and the resolution of election disputes.--Elections Rules, 2017: Provide detailed procedures for the conduct of elections and the handling of election-related grievances and disputes.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a candidate for the National Assembly of Pakistan from NA-128, filed a constitutional petition challenging the order of the Returning Officer (R.O.) on 08.02.2024. The petitioner claimed that the consolidation of election results was conducted unlawfully in his absence. He alleged that despite winning the election by a large margin, he was evicted from the consolidation process by law enforcement officials at the behest of the Returning Officer, and the final result was manipulated. The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondents to allow him to participate in the consolidation process, as required by Rule 85 of the Election Rules, 2017, and to declare the consolidation unlawful. -----Issues: 1- Was the consolidation of results conducted lawfully in the presence of the petitioner? 2- Does the petitioner have a valid constitutional claim under Article 199 against the Returning Officer for consolidating results in his absence? 3- Should the court intervene or direct the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) regarding the consolidation process? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Lawfulness of Consolidation: The court noted that under the Elections Act, 2017, the consolidation of results is a prescribed procedure that must involve the presence of candidates or their representatives. The petitioner’s complaint that the consolidation took place in his absence and was manipulated raised factual disputes that could not be resolved through constitutional jurisdiction. Constitutional Claim: The court held that election matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of election tribunals as per Article 225 of the Constitution. Any grievance regarding the election process, including consolidation or recounting, should be raised before the Election Commission of Pakistan through the remedies provided in the Elections Act, 2017, rather than through a constitutional petition. Court’s Ruling: The court dismissed the petition, citing that it was not maintainable in constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to pursue remedies under Sections 8, 9, 15, and 95 of the Elections Act, 2017, before the Election Commission of Pakistan. -----Citations/Precedents: Zulfiqar Ali Bhatti vs. Election Commission of Pakistan (2022) Muhammad Raza Hayat Hiraj vs. Election Commission of Pakistan (2015 SCMR 233) Aurangzeb Khan vs. Election Commission of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 34) Ali Asjad Malhi vs. Syeda Nosheen Iftikhar (PLD 2023 SC 1)

Summary: BackgroundThis Supreme Court case involves consolidated Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (CPLA) numbers 210, 212, 213, and 214 of 2024, concerning appeals against judgments from the Lahore High Court regarding nomination papers for general elections. Umar Farooq, the petitioner, appealed the High Court's decisions that disqualified him from the elections for the National Assembly (NA-99, Faisalabad-V) and Punjab Assembly (PP-107, Faisalabad-X), due to alleged discrepancies in his nomination papers and an ongoing criminal case.----Issues:Whether the rejection of the nomination papers based on the petitioner's alleged absence during scrutiny and discrepancies in signatures was justified.The legality of disqualifying a candidate based on being a fugitive from justice, particularly when the candidate has obtained pre-arrest bail.The requirement of disclosing criminal cases in the nomination papers in light of the Supreme Court's decision in "Speaker, National Assembly of Pakistan and others v Habib Akram."---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the Lahore High Court, thereby reinstating Umar Farooq's candidacy:Attendance at Scrutiny: The Court found no legal requirement for the candidate to be present at the scrutiny of nomination papers, invalidating the rejection on these grounds.Criminal Case Disclosure: It held that being a fugitive from justice does not disqualify a candidate from contesting elections unless specifically stated in the Constitution or election laws. The Court referenced a recent judgment affirming that a proclaimed offender's civil rights, including election rights, remain unaffected in unrelated matters.Affidavit Disclosure Requirements: The Court addressed the previous Supreme Court directive (Habib Akram case) requiring candidates to disclose pending criminal cases in their affidavits. It clarified that this requirement was an interim measure applicable only to the 2018 election cycle and did not extend to subsequent elections unless explicitly extended by legislative or judicial action.----Citations/Precedents:Tahir Sadiq v Faisal Ali and others (2024 SCP 48), which discusses the rights of proclaimed offenders in contesting elections.Speaker, National Assembly of Pakistan and others v Habib Akram (PLD 2018 SC 678), which mandated additional disclosures through affidavits for the 2018 general elections.

Summary: Law does not prevent a proclaimed offender from contesting elections ----- Supreme Court of Pakistan reaffirmed the pivotal role of elections in a democratic society as a manifestation of the collective will of the nation. The court underscored the fundamental nature of the right to vote freely for one's chosen candidate, citing the landmark precedent of Reynolds v Sims (1964) 377 U.S. 533 as an embodiment of the essence of democracy.Furthermore, the court emphasized the constitutional importance of the right to form or be a member of a political party, as enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Constitution. This right not only includes the liberty to contest elections but also the right to vote for preferred candidates, a fundamental element of democratic governance. This stance was corroborated by precedents such as Nasir Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2014 SC 72 and Arshad Mehmood v. Delimitation Authority PLD 2014 Lah 221.The judgment also underscored the necessity of clearly defined and uniformly applied qualifications and disqualifications for electoral candidates to maintain the integrity of the democratic process, echoing the sentiment expressed in the case of Parvez Elahi v. E.C.P. 2024 SCP 41.In the specific case under consideration, the petitioner's nomination paper for the National Assembly seat was rejected by the Returning Officer on the grounds that the petitioner was a "proclaimed offender." However, during the legal proceedings, it became evident that there was no official order or proclamation issued under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, designating the petitioner as a proclaimed offender. Consequently, the court ruled that, in the absence of such legal proceedings, the petitioner could not be regarded as a proclaimed offender, in accordance with the precedent set in Khan Mir v. Amal Sherin 1989 SCMR 1987.The court also observed that neither the Constitution nor the Elections Act 2017 contained any explicit provisions disqualifying proclaimed offenders from participating in elections, as reinforced by the precedent in Umar Aslam v. E.C.P. 2024 SCP 40. Consequently, the Returning Officers, Appellate Tribunals, or Courts could not unilaterally impose such disqualifications without legal foundation.In its final judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner's appeal, overturning the Lahore High Court's orders, and upheld the acceptance of the petitioner's nomination paper for the National Assembly seat. Additionally, the court directed the Election Commission of Pakistan to promptly facilitate the necessary steps for the petitioner to participate in the upcoming election. This judgment serves as a resounding affirmation of democratic principles and the adherence to legal procedures in electoral processes, emphasizing the importance of well-defined qualifications and disqualifications for candidates to preserve the integrity of the democratic system.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 199, 218(3) & 220 Election Process—Shifting of Polling Stations—Maintainability of Petition under Article 199—Jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)—The petitioners challenged the relocation of 21 polling stations in constituency PB-10, alleging violation of the Election Act, 2017, and denial of voters' rights—Held, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is constitutionally mandated under Article 218(3) to ensure free, fair, and transparent elections, and such decisions regarding polling stations fall within its prerogative—Under Article 220, executive authorities are bound to assist the ECP in fulfilling its duties—The petitioners failed to file objections within the stipulated timeline under Section 59(4) of the Elections Act, 2017—Jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked for matters requiring factual inquiry, particularly when an alternative remedy before the ECP was available and not availed—Petitions were dismissed for being non-maintainable. (b) Elections Act, 2017 (XXXIII of 2017) ----Ss. 8(b), 8(c) & 59(4)—Polling Stations—Relocation—Timelines for Filing Objections—Role of Returning Officer (RO) and District Returning Officer (DRO)**—Under Section 59(4) of the Act, objections regarding polling stations must be filed within the stipulated time frame after publication of the preliminary polling scheme—In the present case, the cutoff date for objections was 11th January 2024, but the petitioners submitted objections on 15th January 2024—Such objections were rightly rejected—The decision to relocate polling stations due to security and law-and-order concerns was made after a consultative meeting held on 21st December 2023, and falls within the lawful prerogative of the RO and DRO, under the supervision of the ECP—Factual controversies regarding the distance between polling stations are not suitable for resolution under constitutional jurisdiction. (c) Administration of Justice ----Alternate Remedy—Scope of Constitutional Jurisdiction—When statutory remedies are available under a specific legal framework, petitioners are obligated to exhaust those remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199—In this case, petitioners failed to approach the ECP under Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Elections Act, 2017, rendering their petitions non-maintainable—Courts are hesitant to intervene in election matters unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights or statutory provisions. (d) Election Governance and Security Concerns ----Law and Order Situation—Relocation of Polling Stations—Administrative Prerogative—The decision to shift polling stations was made considering the law-and-order situation and potential threats to voters' safety—Such decisions are within the administrative discretion of the Returning Officer (RO) and District Returning Officer (DRO) and are aimed at ensuring free, fair, and secure elections—The Court cannot interfere in such matters unless there is clear evidence of malafide intent or violation of legal provisions. Disposition: Constitutional Petitions Nos. 10 and 11 of 2024 dismissed—Petitioners failed to establish any violation of constitutional or statutory provisions—The decision to relocate polling stations was upheld as lawful and within the jurisdiction of the ECP, DRO, and RO—No order as to costs.