Summary: Note by Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J. ''For reasons to be recorded later, we dispose of these appeals, petitions and miscellaneous applications through a short order as under: 1. These matters involve a controversy regarding the allocation of seats reserved for women and non-Muslims. The Sunni Itehad Council (“SIC”) did not contest the General Elections of the year 2024. SIC, which demands allocation of reserved seats on account of inclusion of independent parliamentarians in it, did not secure a single seat in the National Assembly or any of the Provincial Assemblies nor submitted a list of its candidates for seats reserved for women and non-Muslims. Thus, it is not entitled to any of the reserved seats in the National Assembly and in the Provincial Assemblies. The impugned judgment and the order dated 1 March 2024 of the Election Commission of Pakistan (“ECP”) to such extent is upheld. 2. Under Article 51(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”), the total number of seats in the National Assembly shall be 326, out of which 60 seats are reserved for women and 10 seats for non-Muslims. Such right of women and non-Muslims has been guaranteed by the Constitution. They shall be elected in accordance with the law through proportional representation system of political parties’ list of candidates on the basis of total number of general seats secured by each political party from the Province concerned in the National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies, as provided by Article 51(6) (d) and (e) of the Constitution. Therefore, they cannot be deprived of this right of theirs by leaving these seats vacant, and all reserved seats must be filled in, as provided by Article 224(6) of the Constitution. 3. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the said order of the ECP to the extent of the proportional representation distribution of seats amongst the political parties which won and secured seats is also maintained, however, since the ECP calculated and allocated the seats to the parties by the exclusion of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”) candidates, therefore, to such extent, the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the ECP are set aside. 4. During the hearing, it transpired that a number of candidates had submitted their nomination papers declaring on Oath that they belonged to PTI supported by an affiliation certificate of the said party, though some did not submit affiliation certificates of PTI, however, since they stated on Oath that they belonged to PTI, and did not contradict themselves, they should be considered to be members of PTI in the National and the Provincial Assemblies. The ECP by misinterpreting the judgment of this Court dated 13 January 2024, which was regarding non-holding intra-party elections in PTI, wrongly mentioned the said candidates of the PTI as independents in Form 33 of the Election Rules. The ECP had no authority to declare validly nominated candidates of a political party to be independent candidates. Similarly, a candidate once declared himself/herself as a candidate of a political party, could not subsequently resile from his/her candidature of a particular party, after the last date of withdrawal of the nomination papers. 5. It is important to mention here that neither the PTI nor any candidate affiliated with PTI approached either this Court before or during the hearing of these proceedings, or the High Court to challenge the decision of the ECP, declaring them as independents. However, in view of the fact that the appeal and the petition are a continuation of election proceedings before the ECP, we can look into the vires of the decision of the ECP in the light of the provisions of Article 51(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution read with sections 66, 67 and 104 of the Elections Act, 2017 to safeguard the interest of women and non-Muslims. As a consequence whereof, the candidates who had submitted their nomination papers declaring that they belonged to PTI and had not filed a document showing affiliation with another political party before the last date of withdrawal of the nomination papers, should have been treated as the Parliamentary Party of PTI, but the needful was not done by the ECP. Consequently, the PTI as a Parliamentary Party is entitled to the reserved seats. The ECP should recalculate and reallocate the reserved seats amongst the political parties, including the PTI, as provided by Article 51(6)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. 6. The candidates who had submitted their nomination papers by 24 December 2023, which was the last date of submission of nomination papers, and had declared themselves either as independent candidates or had left blank the relevant column in the nomination papers/declaration and were elected shall be considered to be independents. SIC is a registered political party and every independent member of the National Assembly and of the Provincial Assemblies has a right to join it. All those who joined the SIC are presumed to have done so out of their own free will. None of them claimed to have joined SIC because of any misunderstanding of any judgment, the law, compulsion, coercion or undue influence and it is not for this Court to presume otherwise. 7. We must ensure that words are not read into the Constitution nor to ascribe artificial meaning to commonly understood words. We must also abide by validly enacted laws and must not do anything either to hinder or facilitate a political party by ignoring the laws mandate.''

Summary: The Sunni Ittehad Council challenged the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) notifications declaring certain individuals as returned candidates for reserved seats for women and minorities in the National and Provincial Assemblies. The appellants argued that the notifications and the ECP's order were ultra vires the Constitution and issued without lawful authority. -----Issues: 1. Whether the ECP's order and subsequent notifications were constitutional and lawful. ---2. Whether the lack or denial of an election symbol affects the constitutional and legal rights of a political party. ----3. Determining the status of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) as a political party that secured general seats in the 2024 General Elections. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----ECP's Order and Notifications: The Supreme Court declared the ECP's order dated March 1, 2024, and the subsequent notifications as ultra vires the Constitution, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect. ----Election Symbol: The court declared that the lack or denial of an election symbol does not affect the constitutional and legal rights of a political party to participate in an election and to field candidates. -----Status of PTI: The court confirmed PTI's status as a political party that secured general seats in the National and Provincial Assemblies in the 2024 General Elections. The court provided a process for determining which seats were secured by PTI and how to allocate reserved seats for women and minorities accordingly. ----Citations/Precedents: Specific case citations were not provided in the judgment. The judgment relies on constitutional provisions, particularly Article 51 and Article 106, as well as statutory provisions under the Elections Act, 2017, and the Elections Rules, 2017. ----Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court to the extent it was inconsistent with this order. The court provided detailed steps for verifying and confirming the candidates affiliated with PTI for the purposes of allocating reserved seats. The ECP was directed to notify the candidates accordingly and file a compliance report with the court. ----Notes: This case underscores the importance of lawful procedures and constitutional adherence in the election process. The court's decision ensures that political parties' rights are protected even in the absence of election symbols, and that reserved seats are allocated fairly based on verified election results.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ---Arts. 17(2), 51(6)(d) & (e), 63, 65, 106(3)(c), 184(3), 185(3), 224(6); Elections Act, 2017, Ss. 66, 67, 104 & Election Rules, 2017 Allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims—Scope—Constitutional validity of Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) Order dated 01.03.2024 and its notifications declaring returned candidates on reserved seats—Maintainability—Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), not having contested the General Elections 2024 or submitted any priority list for reserved seats, claimed entitlement to such seats based on independent candidates joining it post-election—Held, SIC did not fulfil constitutional or legal prerequisites to claim allocation of reserved seats under proportional representation system; did not contest elections or secure any general seat—ECP’s order and relevant notifications, insofar as they excluded PTI-affiliated candidates from the seat count, were declared ultra vires the Constitution and set aside—Supreme Court by majority held that PTI remained a political party under the law, and candidates declaring PTI affiliation in their nomination forms and supported by party certificates were to be treated as PTI members for purposes of seat allocation—Denial of election symbol did not affect right of a political party to field candidates or participate in elections—PTI held entitled to proportionate allocation of reserved seats based on its actual electoral success—Constitutional obligation imposed on ECP to recalculate and notify reserved seats for PTI accordingly—Petitions of SIC dismissed. Cited Cases: • Workers' Party Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 681 • Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416 (b) Constitutional Law: ----Arts. 51(6)(d) & (e), 106(3)(c), 63-A, 226 Interpretation of proportional representation—Returned candidates declared independent by ECP despite nomination as PTI members—Held, candidates who submitted nomination papers declaring PTI affiliation and did not contradict said declaration prior to withdrawal deadline must be treated as PTI members—Declaration by ECP that such candidates were independent held without lawful authority—Court declared that under constitutional provisions, party-list based allocation of reserved seats must reflect the true will of electorate and should not be frustrated by technicalities—Failure of ECP to recognize valid PTI candidatures undermined representational justice and electoral integrity. (c) Representation and Electoral Rights: ----Elections Act, 2017, Ss. 66, 67, 104; Election Rules, 2017 Submission of party lists and affidavits—ECP required to apply statutory provisions in a manner giving full effect to constitutional rights—Court directed ECP to issue notice to 41 other returned candidates (who were declared independent but declared PTI affiliation in part) to file notarized statements confirming party affiliation, with PTI granted opportunity to confirm such claims—Held, such mechanism would determine true number of general seats secured by PTI, entitling it to reserved seats accordingly—Court ordered timely publication of list and compliance report by ECP—Reserved seats not to remain vacant under Article 224(6), and must be filled to preserve parliamentary representativeness. (d) Constitutional Jurisdiction and Limitation: ----Arts. 184(3), 185(3), 175 Scope of Supreme Court’s power in electoral matters—PTI was not a party to the original proceedings before the ECP or High Court—Minority view emphasized that majority judgment extended beyond Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 185(3)—Concerns raised that judicial relief was granted to a non-party, creating enforceable rights in absence of lis—Joined candidates were not heard, and allocation affected without affording audi alteram partem—Held (minority), that such judicial overreach may result in constitutional violations and consequences for oath-bound office holders—Majority nevertheless exercised jurisdiction under Art. 184(3) to enforce fundamental representational rights.

Summary: The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) filed two civil petitions for leave to appeal against a common judgment dated May 29, 2024, by a single judge of the Lahore High Court. The respondents, Salman Akram Raja and Rao Omar Hashim Khan, had challenged the authority of the ECP to appoint Election Tribunals, asserting that the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court should have primacy in the consultation process. ----Issues: 1. Whether the Election Commission of Pakistan has the authority to appoint Election Tribunals without meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. 2. Whether the writ petitions filed by the respondents were maintainable. 3. Whether the interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions and the Elections Act, 2017, by the Lahore High Court was correct. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the substantial constitutional and legal points raised. The court noted that the petitions involve the interpretation of the Constitution and the Elections Act, 2017. The court directed the ECP to file relevant correspondence and notifications regarding the appointment of Election Tribunals in other provinces, indicating that no issues were encountered there. The matter was referred to the Committee constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, for further orders. ----Citations/Precedents: Al-Jehad Trust v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 324) Riaz-ul-Haq v Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 501) Constitution of Pakistan: Articles 219(c), 222(d), 225 Elections Act, 2017: Sections 140(1), (2), (3), 151 Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972: Section 3 Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023: Section 4

Summary: Background:Muhammad Atif filed a constitutional petition challenging an order from the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) regarding a vote recount in the constituency PP-133 Nankana Sahib-II. The initial recount request by respondent No.3 was rejected by the Returning Officer on February 9, 2024. Subsequently, an application for a recount under Section 95 of the Election Act, 2017, was filed with the ECP on February 10, 2024. The ECP's bench failed to find the Returning Officer's report satisfactory and ordered an inquiry. The ECP's final decision on April 1, 2024, based on the inquiry committee's findings, led to the suspension of the election notification for the petitioner until the controversy was resolved.----Issues:Whether the ECP had the jurisdiction under Section 95(6) of the Election Act, 2017, to order a recount after the consolidation of results was concluded.Whether the ECP can invoke inherent powers to rectify perceived injustices in the electoral process outside the specific provisions of the Election Act, 2017.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the ECP exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a recount after the consolidation proceedings had concluded, which contravened the explicit mandate of Section 95(6). The court held that the ECP does not have inherent powers beyond those specifically conferred by the statute. Therefore, the petition was allowed, the order of the ECP was set aside, and the notification declaring respondent No.3 as the returned candidate was nullified.----Citations/Precedents:Ch. Bilal Ejaz v. Election Commission of Pakistan & others (W.P No.16416 of 2024) established that the ECP must act within the bounds of Section 95(6) before the conclusion of consolidation proceedings.Supreme Court of Pakistan in Zulfiqar Ali Bhatti was referenced to highlight past decisions where the superior courts limited the ECP's jurisdiction to the statutory provisions.Election Act, 2017, specifically Section 95, outlines the process and limitations for electoral recounts and the consolidation of results.

Summary: Background:The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), a political entity with 82 general seats in Pakistan's National Assembly, filed appeals against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) regarding the allocation of reserved seats for women and non-Muslims. The dispute arose after the ECP?s allocation of these reserved seats, which SIC contended violated constitutional provisions. The case, initially addressed by the Peshawar High Court and resulting in an unfavorable outcome for SIC, escalated to the Supreme Court of Pakistan.----Issues:The central issue revolves around the interpretation and application of Articles 51(6)(d) & (e) and 106(2)(c) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan concerning the allocation of reserved seats in the National Assembly:1.Whether the reserved seats should be distributed among political parties based on their proportional representation from general seats won in the elections.2.The eligibility of a political party for reserved seats allocation if it has not contested or won any seat in the general elections.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address these constitutional questions, recognizing the case as one of first impression?meaning it involves legal issues that the Court has not previously decided. The Court noted the significance of ensuring that the allocation of reserved seats reflects the electorate's voice and upholds democratic principles, such as fairness and transparency in electoral processes.The appeals are scheduled for a hearing, with the Court permitting both parties to submit additional documents not included in the initial petitions. An interim order was issued, suspending the operation of both the judgment of the Peshawar High Court and the order by the ECP concerning the disputed reserved seats allocation, effective from the date of the Supreme Court's order.----Citations/Precedents:Article 51(6)(d) & (e) of the Constitution: Dictates the proportional representation system for the allocation of reserved seats based on the number of general seats a political party secures in the National Assembly.Article 106(2)(c) of the Constitution: Similar provisions as Article 51 but applicable to Provincial Assemblies.Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023: Mentioned for procedural guidance on forming a larger bench to hear the case, indicating the legal and constitutional significance of the issues at hand.

Summary: Background: Nawab Jangaiz Khan Marri and respondents, including Mir Naseebullah Khan, contested the general elections for the Provincial Assembly seat PB-9, Kohlu, held on 08.02.2024. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) ordered re-polling at four polling stations due to allegations of grave illegalities. The appellant challenged this order, claiming the ECP exceeded its jurisdiction and passed the order without conducting a proper inquiry. ----Issues: Whether the ECP violated Section 9(1) of the Elections Act, 2017, by ordering re-polling without conducting an inquiry. Whether the ECP exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering re-polling at the four polling stations twice. Whether a high voter turnout (85%) is inherently suspicious and sufficient grounds for ordering re-polling. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Section 9(1) Inquiry Requirement: The Court held that the ECP is obligated to conduct an inquiry and consider facts apparent on the face of the record before ordering re-polling. In this case, the ECP examined the entire record and reports and concluded that re-polling was necessary due to irregularities that materially affected the election results. ECP's Jurisdiction: The Court found that the ECP acted within its jurisdiction under Sections 4, 8(c), and 9 of the Elections Act, 2017. The ECP's powers include ensuring fair elections and ordering re-polling if grave illegalities are found. High Voter Turnout: The Court noted that while a high turnout (85%) is not universally suspicious, it was deemed unnatural in this case given the overall turnout of 25% in the constituency. The Court upheld the ECP's decision to order re-polling based on this significant discrepancy. ---Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Shabbir v. The State (2020 SCMR 1206) Farooq Ahmed v. The State (2020 SCMR 78) Ghulam Hussain v. The State (PLD 2020 SC 61) Hamid Mukhtar Shah v. Muhammad Azam (2005 SCMR 427) Salah-ud-din v. The State (2010 SCMR 1962) Qari Muhammad Ishaq Ghazi v. The State (2019 SCMR 1646) Zulfiqar alias Zulfa v. The State (2021 SCMR 531) Liaquat Ali v. The State (2022 SCMR 1097) Ali Taj v. The State (2023 SCMR 900) Nazeer Ahmed v. The State (2023 SCMR 1299) Amjad Ali v. The State (PLD 2017 SC 661) Ajun Shah v. The State (PLD 1967 SC 185) Muhammad Bilal v. The State (2019 SCMR 1362) Khalid Hussain Magsi v. Abdul Rahim Rind and others (2016 SCMR 900) Ali Asjad Malhi v. Ms. Syeda Nosheen Iftikhar and others (PLD 2023 SC 1) M/s. Inbox Business Technologies Ltd. v. Pakistan (2018 PTD 621) Muhammad Nawaz Chandio v. Muhammad Ismail Rahu (2016 SCMR 875) Behram Khan v. Abdul Hameed Khan Achakzai (PLD 1990 SC 352) Jehangir Tareen case Abdul Hafeez Khan v. Muhammad Tahir Khan Loni (1999 SCMR 284) Waheeda Shah v. Election Commission of Pakistan (PLD 2013 Sindh 117)

Summary: Background:This case involves a constitutional petition filed by Ch. Bilal Ejaz against the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and others, challenging the ECP's order for a vote recount in specific polling stations for the National Assembly seat NA-81 Gujranwala-V, following the general elections held on February 8, 2024. The petitioner, Ch. Bilal Ejaz, who was initially declared the winner, contested the ECP's decision that favored a recount after an appeal by the third respondent. The recount led to the declaration of the third respondent as the winner.----Issues:Whether the ECP's decision to order a recount after the official results were announced was within its legal powers under the Election Act of 2017.Whether the ECP's actions were consistent with the constitutional and statutory provisions governing election disputes and recounts.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the ECP exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a recount after the official results were declared and the election process was concluded. The key findings were:The ECP's power under Section 8 of the Election Act, 2017, is limited and does not allow for actions affecting the election outcome once the results have been officially consolidated and declared.The appropriate forum for addressing election disputes after the official declaration of results is through election petitions before Election Tribunals, not through additional recounts ordered by the ECP.The ECP's decision was found to be inconsistent with its powers as delineated under the Election Act, 2017, and the principles established in prior judicial decisions.

Summary: Background:Sirdar Muhammad Umer Khan Khosa filed a petition against the Election Commission of Pakistan and others challenging the rejection of his nomination papers for constituency PP-290, D.G. Khan-V. The Returning Officer and the Election Tribunal had rejected his nomination on the grounds of non-submission of requisite No Objection Certificates (NOCs) and mistakenly attaching his brother's academic transcript.-----Issues:Whether the non-submission of NOCs at the time of filing nomination papers and later submission before scrutiny is a ground for rejection.Whether the attachment of a sibling's academic transcript, instead of the petitioner's own, affects the validity of the nomination, especially when academic qualifications like LLM are not prerequisites for candidacy.Whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to rectify the alleged discrepancies in the nomination papers.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court set aside the decisions of the Returning Officer and the Election Tribunal, thereby accepting the petitioner's nomination papers. The Court found that:The non-submission of NOCs at the time of filing, followed by their submission before the scrutiny date, should not have been a ground for rejection, especially since the NOCs confirmed no liabilities against the petitioner.The attachment of the petitioner's brother's transcript was not a valid ground for rejection, as the academic qualification of LLM was not a prerequisite for the candidacy. Furthermore, the court did not delve into the factual dispute regarding the attachment of the wrong transcript but stated that such an error, if any, was not substantial enough to warrant rejection.The petitioner was not provided a fair opportunity to address the cited defects in the nomination papers, which is against the principles of natural justice.------Citations/Precedents:Malik Shakeel Awan v. Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed and 21 others (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 643)Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Muhammad Usman Dar and others (2018 SCMR 2128)Nida Khuhro v. Moazzam Ali Khan and others (2019 SCMR 1684)Shamona Badshah Qaisarani v. Election Tribunal, Multan and others (2021 SCMR 988)Amir Raza and another v. Provincial Election Commission through DEO and 5 others (2016 YLR 431)Tahir Sadiq v. Faisal Ali, etc. (Civil Petition No.150 & 152 of 2024)Pervez Elahi v. Election Commission of Pakistan, etc. (Civil Petition No.181 of 2024)

Summary: Background:Ch. Muhammad Arshad filed a writ petition against Parvez Elahi and two others, challenging the Election Tribunal's decision that favored respondent No.1, Parvez Elahi. The Tribunal had reversed a decision by the Returning Officer, who initially rejected Elahi's nomination papers for electoral candidacy due to certain objections related to asset disclosures. Arshad, aggrieved particularly by objections 1, 8, 9, 10, and 11, contested the Tribunal's ruling, alleging that Elahi failed to meet the legal requirements for asset disclosure under electoral laws and the Constitution of Pakistan.-----Issues:Did Parvez Elahi fulfill the legal requirements for disclosing asset details as mandated by electoral laws and the Constitution of Pakistan?Was the Election Tribunal's decision within the scope of previous electoral contests and established legal precedents?What is the Lahore High Court's jurisdiction and role in reviewing decisions made by the Election Tribunal, especially in electoral disputes?-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no substantial reasons to overturn the Election Tribunal's decision. The Court recognized that similar objections raised against Elahi in previous elections were either rejected by the Returning Officer or adjudicated in favor of Elahi by the Election Tribunal and higher courts, including the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Court emphasized democratic principles, the responsibilities of Returning Officers in the electoral process, and the judiciary's role as a guardian of democracy and fundamental rights. It was noted that the Returning Officer failed to exercise discretion to allow Elahi to rectify non-substantial defects in his nomination papers, as mandated by electoral laws.-----Citations/Precedents:C.P.No.151 & 152 of 2024: Discussed democratic principles, duties of Returning Officers, and the judiciary's role in safeguarding democracy and fundamental rights.C.P.No.181 of 2024: Highlighted the importance of inclusive participation in elections and the judiciary's responsibility to interpret electoral laws in favor of enfranchisement.C.P.No.183 of 2024: Emphasized the significance of elections in democracy, the responsibilities of Returning Officers, and the judiciary's duty to ensure the fairness of the electoral process.