Summary: Background:Muhammad Yousaf appealed against the judgment of The Election Tribunal, Abbottabad, which had allowed Abdul Mateen's election petition, resulting in Yousaf's de-notification from the general councilor seat of Union Council Tatreela (No. 44). Mateen's petition argued that Yousaf, being a Nikah Registrar, was ineligible to contest the election. The tribunal directed the Election Commission of Pakistan to schedule polling for the now-vacant seat. Yousaf's appeal contested the tribunal's decision, while Mateen's connected appeal sought his declaration as the returned candidate instead of ordering a re-poll.-----Issues:Whether a Nikah Registrar is eligible to contest local body elections under Section 78(1)(f) of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013, considering the bar against individuals "in the service" of government or statutory bodies.The interpretation and application of the exclusion provided for "part-time officials" and "holders of elected public office" within the same section.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Peshawar High Court allowed Muhammad Yousaf's appeal, setting aside the Election Tribunal's decision and restoring his notification as the returned candidate. The Court held that:The term "Nikah Registrar" refers to a part-time official not "in the service" of the government or statutory bodies as envisaged by the legal bar in Section 78(1)(f) of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013.Nikah Registrars, being remunerated through fees from marriage registrations, do not fall within the ambit of "service" as implied in the contested section. They do not receive a salary or honorarium from the public exchequer.The legislature explicitly excluded part-time officials and holders of elected public offices from the disqualification to contest elections, which applies to the case of a Nikah Registrar.The proviso concerning resignation or retirement from service, and the subsequent waiting period of six months before contesting elections, does not apply to Nikah Registrars since their role does not entail a formal process of resignation or retirement.The Court distinguished between "public servants" and individuals "in the service" of the government or statutory bodies, clarifying that not all public servants are barred from contesting elections under the specific legal provision.----Citations/Precedents:The Court referenced several judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, which clarified the interpretation of eligibility criteria for candidates in elections, the distinction between "public servants" and "civil servants," and the principles for interpreting statutes in a manner that advances justice. These included rulings on the roles and legal status of individuals holding part-time official positions and their eligibility to participate in elections.---Key points:(1). Law relating to qualifications and disqualifications of the candidate and elected member of local council and the bar if any as envisage in Section 78 of The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013 fully discussed and interpreted.(2). As per the bar contained in Section 78 of The Act of 2013 only those persons could contest election who are not in the service of federal, a provincial or a local government or, any statutory body or a body which is controlled by any such government and such person too could contest election if six months? period has expired after his/her resignation or retirement from service, as the case may be.(3) The bar as contained in Section 78 of The Act of 2013 could not be applied to those persons who are holder of elected public office and part time officials remunerated either by salary or fee.(4). In view of the interpretation so made a ?Nikah Registrar? could contest local body election as he is a part time official and he is being remunerated from fee collected by him.(5). Though the Nikah Registrar is a ?public servant? but he could not be termed a person ?in the service of federation or provincial government or local authority? as such the bar contained in Section 78 of The Act of 2013 could not be applied to him.(6). The phraseology of ?civil servant?, a ?government servant? or ?person in service of Pakistan? and ?public servant? are having distinct meaning and they are to be read in the context of those statutes where such terminology has been used.(7). The baring provisions to contest election are to be interpreted construed and applied strictly and a person could only be debarred from contesting election or to hold an elected public office if his case is fully covered within the parameter of the law otherwise not.

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: 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: doctrine of election of forum; once exercised cannot be abated at the suitors will.

Summary: Background:In Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal (C.P.L.A.) No. 244/2024, Malik Ahmad Usman Nawaz challenged the Lahore High Court's decision which upheld the Appellate Tribunal's rejection of his nomination papers for the Punjab Assembly seat PP-254 (Bahawalpur-X). The initial rejection by the Returning Officer was based on a mismatch between the candidate's signature on the nomination paper and his CNIC. Subsequently, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal citing Nawaz's status as a proclaimed offender in a criminal case, thereby disqualifying him from participating in the electoral process.---Issues:The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Lahore High Court and the Appellate Tribunal erred in law by rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner for reasons including his status as a proclaimed offender, despite him having obtained bail, and the alleged mismatch of signatures.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court allowed the petition, converting it into an appeal and setting aside the judgments of both the Lahore High Court and the Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that the petitioner?s status as a proclaimed offender, for which he obtained bail, did not disqualify him from contesting elections as per the recent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Specifically, the Court referenced a decision (CP Nos. 150 & 152/2024, Tahir Sadiq v Faisal Ali and others) which clarified that being a proclaimed offender in one case does not affect a person?s civil rights in unrelated matters, including the right to contest elections.Additionally, the Supreme Court found the grounds of signature mismatch to be without merit. It determined that the objection based on the mismatch of signatures was not a valid ground for rejecting nomination papers under the Elections Act 2017, particularly since the relevant clause concerning signatures (s. 62(9) clause (d)) does not pertain to candidates but to proposers or seconders.The Court criticized the Returning Officer and the Appellate Tribunal for their failure to apply the correct legal standards and for not addressing the issues relevant to the specific case of PP-254. It emphasized that any mismatch in signatures could have been immediately remedied and was not material enough to warrant rejection.----Citations/Precedents:Tahir Sadiq v Faisal Ali and others (2024 SCP 48): Addressed the implications of being a proclaimed offender on civil rights, stating that this status does not generally impact unrelated civil matters such as contesting elections unless specifically prohibited by law.

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: Issues:Whether Section 215 of the Election Act, 2017 is ultra-vires of the Constitution of Pakistan. ---- Whether the ECP can question the internal appointments or intra-party elections of PTI and declare them void. ---- Holdings:The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 215 of the Election Act, 2017 is not ultra-vires of the Constitution and that the ECP has the authority to enforce compliance with the Act's provisions regarding intra-party elections.---- Legal Reasoning:The court reasoned that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on the freedom of association in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, public order, or morality. The Election Act, 2017, particularly Section 215, provides a mechanism to ensure political parties comply with legal requirements for intra-party elections. The court found that the ECP's actions were within its constitutional and statutory authority to enforce compliance with these provisions. The court also noted that the petitioner's challenge was not maintainable, as the matter had already been decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, whose decisions are binding on all other courts under Article 189 of the Constitution.Significant Citations:Workers? Party Pakistan vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 681)Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs. President of Pakistan (PLD 1993 Supreme Court 473)Miss Benazir Bhutto vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 Supreme Court 416)Supreme Court judgment in C.P.No.42 of 2024

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.

Summary: Merged judgements for Order CP 184, 185 & 186, acceptance of nomination papers of Sanam Javaidd through short order, allowing her to contest Elections from PP-150, NA-120, NA-119.