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: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: Background: The petitioners filed a constitutional petition challenging the validity of notifications issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) concerning the schedule for local government elections in Sindh. The petitioners argued that these notifications were unconstitutional, arbitrary, and beyond the ECP's jurisdiction. They contended that the notifications were issued without proper consultation with the Sindh Government and violated various constitutional provisions and election laws. ----Issues: 1- Whether the ECP's notifications were issued without lawful authority and in excess of its jurisdiction. 2- Whether the ECP was properly constituted at the time of issuing the notifications. 3- Whether the impugned notifications violated the constitutional mandate and election laws. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The petitioners argued that the ECP's notifications were arbitrary and unconstitutional, citing that the ECP was not properly constituted when the notifications were issued. The court noted that the ECP, as a constitutional body, is responsible for organizing and conducting elections in Pakistan, and it enjoys administrative and financial autonomy. The court emphasized that according to Section 3(2) of the Election Act, the ECP can exercise its powers even if there are vacancies or absences among its members. Decisions made by the majority of the present members are considered valid. The court referred to previous judgments by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which upheld that actions taken by the ECP are not invalidated due to the existence of vacancies or absences. The court found that the petitioners' argument lacked merit, as the ECP was functioning within its constitutional and legal framework. The court dismissed the petitioners' application for a restraining order, finding no inherent illegality or defect in the impugned notifications. ----Citations/Precedents: Syed Qaim Ali Shah through Attorney v. Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and 03 others, PLD 2015 Sindh 408: Highlighted the ECP's powers post-18th Amendment. Sardar sher Bahadar Khan and others v. Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary, Election Commission, Islamabad and others, (PLD 2018 SC 97): Clarified that ECP decisions are valid even if not all members are present. Election Act, 2017: Section 3(2) allows the ECP to function with a majority of members.

Summary: Facts:The appellant, Shujat Hussain, and a contesting private respondent were candidates for the Chairman position of Union Council-15, Padagai, Lashkar Khan, District Chaghi. In the election held on February 9, 2023, both candidates secured five votes each. The election was decided by drawing lots, favoring the appellant. The respondent filed an election petition with the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) seeking a re-poll, which was granted. The appellant challenged this decision in the Balochistan High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court.----Procedural History:The Election Commission's order for a re-poll was challenged by the appellant in the Balochistan High Court, which dismissed the challenge. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, which considered the case alongside a miscellaneous application for stay and condonation of delay in filing the appeal.---Issue:Whether the Election Commission's order for a re-poll was legally valid and if the proper recourse was taken in challenging the election outcome.----Holding:The Supreme Court found that the Election Commission's decision to conduct a re-poll was beyond its jurisdiction and without lawful authority. The Court set aside the High Court's dismissal of the appellant's writ petition and remanded the matter to the High Court for further proceedings.----Reasoning:The Court observed that the election in question was governed by the Balochistan Local Government Act, 2010, and the Elections Act, 2017. The correct legal procedure was for an election petition to be filed under the 2010 Act, not under sections 8 and 9 of the 2017 Act, as the Election Commission had done. The Supreme Court concluded that the Election Commission should have constituted an Election Tribunal under the 2010 Act to resolve the election dispute, rather than deciding the matter itself. The Court also noted that an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 9(5) of the 2017 Act is not a general right but is specific to orders made under that section.---Comments:This judgment emphasizes the importance of following the correct legal procedures and statutory provisions in election disputes. It clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between different legislative acts governing elections and the role of the Election Commission versus that of the Election Tribunal. The Supreme Court's decision to remand the case back to the High Court, while allowing the re-poll to continue without declaring the result, underscores the complexity of election disputes and the need for careful judicial review.

Summary: BackgroundThe petition concerns the election of the Vice-President of the Cantonment Board, Malir, Karachi, held on November 27, 2021. Imran Khan, the petitioner, won the election with 6 out of 11 votes, against Malik Amanullah Khan, respondent No.1, who received 5 votes. The respondent challenged the election results, alleging a corrupt practice due to an irregularly marked ballot which they argued was intended to disclose the voter's identity, thereby swaying the election result in favor of the petitioner.---IssuesThe primary issue in this case was the legality of the election result in light of the challenged vote. Specific legal questions addressed included:Whether the mark other than a cross on the ballot paper invalidated the vote.The applicability of the Cantonments Local Government (Election) Rules, 2015, particularly Rules regarding the marking of ballots and election appeals.The interpretation of election rules in assessing voter intention and the validity of a ballot.---Holding/Reasoning/OutcomeThe appellate election authority initially allowed the challenge, leading to the petition being filed. The Sindh High Court examined the arguments regarding the maintenance of election secrecy and the interpretation of the marking rules. The court found that the Cantonments Local Government (Election) Rules, 2015 did not prescribe strict consequences for non-compliance with the exact mark type (cross mark), provided the voter's intention was clear. It also noted that the provisions used by the appellate authority to invalidate the vote were inapplicable to the circumstances of this election.The court emphasized the importance of discerning voter intention over technical compliance with marking instructions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate authority's decision, reinstating the election results and confirming Imran Khan as the duly elected Vice-President of the Cantonment Board, Malir.---Citations/PrecedentsCantonments Local Government (Election) Rules, 2015: Specifically, Rules 40, 89(4), and 89(6) were discussed regarding their relevance to the marking and validity of ballots.Supreme Court and High Court Judgments:Allah Bakhsh v. Mst. Irshad Begum, 1996 SCMR 1496Dr. Sher Afghan v. Aamar Hayat Khan, 1987 SCMR 1987Syed Tassaduq Abbas Bukhari v. Chairman, Appeal Committee, Punjab-I, 2001 MLD 634These cases supported the principle that election technicalities should not defeat the clear intention of the voter.

Summary: [Scrutiny of nomination papers-Sindh Local Government Elections] The appellant filed nomination papers for a councilor seat in UC Jarki. The respondents objected to the nomination papers, claiming that the appellant had not fully disclosed his and his spouse's assets. Initially, the objection was rejected, but the respondents appealed to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and later filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court accepted the writ petition and rejected the nomination papers. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that there was no requirement for a pre-election declaration of assets and that any omissions in the nomination papers were immaterial or innocent. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, and the Elections Act, 2017, and determined that there was a requirement to declare assets in the nomination papers. However, the consequences of non-compliance were less severe in local government elections compared to elections to the Federal or Provincial legislatures. The court concluded that the appellant's nomination papers should not have been rejected.

Summary: The case discussed in the judgment is Civil Appeal No. 3090 of 2022, which was filed against the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in Case No. F-23(284)/2022-Law. The appeal pertains to the local government elections in Sindh, specifically for the district council in UC No. 31, Khuda Dad, Tehsil Kot Ghulam Muhammad, Mirpurkhas. The appellants and the contesting respondents participated in the elections, with the appellants receiving the highest number of votes. However, the contesting respondents alleged that a printing error occurred on the ballot papers, where their symbol (a hand pump) was incorrectly printed as a bibcock or tap. They argued that this led to confusion among the voters, primarily illiterate ones who associated the symbol with the contesting respondents. The Election Commission of Pakistan, upon hearing the petition filed by the contesting respondents, declared the election void and ordered a re-poll. The appellants filed an appeal challenging this order under Section 9(5) of the Elections Act, 2017. During the proceedings, the appellants argued that the contesting respondents' claims were based on conjectures and that the voters were not misled by the printing error. They contended that both the hand pump and tap were referred to with the same word in Urdu, and voters were familiar with the contesting respondents' symbol. However, the contesting respondents maintained that the error caused significant confusion among the voters, which affected the election outcome. After considering the relevant provisions and the record, the court concluded that the appeal and the miscellaneous application should be dismissed. They found that the printing error materially affected the result of the poll, leading to confusion among voters. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan to order a re-poll for the entire constituency. Therefore, the appeal and the miscellaneous application were dismissed, affirming the decision of the Election Commission of Pakistan.

Summary: The case discussed in the judgment is Civil Appeal No. 3090 of 2022, which was filed against the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in Case No. F-23(284)/2022-Law. The appeal pertains to the local government elections in Sindh, specifically for the district council in UC No. 31, Khuda Dad, Tehsil Kot Ghulam Muhammad, Mirpurkhas. The appellants and the contesting respondents participated in the elections, with the appellants receiving the highest number of votes. However, the contesting respondents alleged that a printing error occurred on the ballot papers, where their symbol (a hand pump) was incorrectly printed as a bibcock or tap. They argued that this led to confusion among the voters, primarily illiterate ones who associated the symbol with the contesting respondents. The Election Commission of Pakistan, upon hearing the petition filed by the contesting respondents, declared the election void and ordered a re-poll. The appellants filed an appeal challenging this order under Section 9(5) of the Elections Act, 2017. During the proceedings, the appellants argued that the contesting respondents' claims were based on conjectures and that the voters were not misled by the printing error. They contended that both the hand pump and tap were referred to with the same word in Urdu, and voters were familiar with the contesting respondents' symbol. However, the contesting respondents maintained that the error caused significant confusion among the voters, which affected the election outcome. After considering the relevant provisions and the record, the court concluded that the appeal and the miscellaneous application should be dismissed. They found that the printing error materially affected the result of the poll, leading to confusion among voters. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan to order a re-poll for the entire constituency. Therefore, the appeal and the miscellaneous application were dismissed, affirming the decision of the Election Commission of Pakistan.

Summary: The case discussed in the judgment is Civil Appeal No. 3090 of 2022, which was filed against the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in Case No. F-23(284)/2022-Law. The appeal pertains to the local government elections in Sindh, specifically for the district council in UC No. 31, Khuda Dad, Tehsil Kot Ghulam Muhammad, Mirpurkhas. The appellants and the contesting respondents participated in the elections, with the appellants receiving the highest number of votes. However, the contesting respondents alleged that a printing error occurred on the ballot papers, where their symbol (a hand pump) was incorrectly printed as a bibcock or tap. They argued that this led to confusion among the voters, primarily illiterate ones who associated the symbol with the contesting respondents. The Election Commission of Pakistan, upon hearing the petition filed by the contesting respondents, declared the election void and ordered a re-poll. The appellants filed an appeal challenging this order under Section 9(5) of the Elections Act, 2017. During the proceedings, the appellants argued that the contesting respondents' claims were based on conjectures and that the voters were not misled by the printing error. They contended that both the hand pump and tap were referred to with the same word in Urdu, and voters were familiar with the contesting respondents' symbol. However, the contesting respondents maintained that the error caused significant confusion among the voters, which affected the election outcome. After considering the relevant provisions and the record, the court concluded that the appeal and the miscellaneous application should be dismissed. They found that the printing error materially affected the result of the poll, leading to confusion among voters. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan to order a re-poll for the entire constituency. Therefore, the appeal and the miscellaneous application were dismissed, affirming the decision of the Election Commission of Pakistan.

Summary: The case discussed in the judgment is Civil Appeal No. 3090 of 2022, which was filed against the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in Case No. F-23(284)/2022-Law. The appeal pertains to the local government elections in Sindh, specifically for the district council in UC No. 31, Khuda Dad, Tehsil Kot Ghulam Muhammad, Mirpurkhas. The appellants and the contesting respondents participated in the elections, with the appellants receiving the highest number of votes. However, the contesting respondents alleged that a printing error occurred on the ballot papers, where their symbol (a hand pump) was incorrectly printed as a bibcock or tap. They argued that this led to confusion among the voters, primarily illiterate ones who associated the symbol with the contesting respondents. The Election Commission of Pakistan, upon hearing the petition filed by the contesting respondents, declared the election void and ordered a re-poll. The appellants filed an appeal challenging this order under Section 9(5) of the Elections Act, 2017. During the proceedings, the appellants argued that the contesting respondents' claims were based on conjectures and that the voters were not misled by the printing error. They contended that both the hand pump and tap were referred to with the same word in Urdu, and voters were familiar with the contesting respondents' symbol. However, the contesting respondents maintained that the error caused significant confusion among the voters, which affected the election outcome. After considering the relevant provisions and the record, the court concluded that the appeal and the miscellaneous application should be dismissed. They found that the printing error materially affected the result of the poll, leading to confusion among voters. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan to order a re-poll for the entire constituency. Therefore, the appeal and the miscellaneous application were dismissed, affirming the decision of the Election Commission of Pakistan.