Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan----Arts. 175A, 191A & 184(3)----Supreme Court (Practice & Procedure) Act, 2023----Constitutional Benches (‘CBs’)---Transfer of pending matters---Precedence of Constitution over Supreme Court Rules. ---- Twenty-Sixth Constitutional Amendment altered the judicature by inserting Art.191A, under which Constitutional Benches of the Supreme Court are constituted from Judges nominated by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). Sub-Art. (3) vests exclusive jurisdiction in CBs over specified constitutional matters, while sub-Art. (5) provides that all petitions, appeals or review applications in such matters, pending or filed before commencement of the amendment, stand transferred to CBs and “shall only” be heard and decided by them. This automatic transfer operates by force of the Constitution and does not require any judicial order. Where Art.191A(3)–(5) is attracted, benches other than CBs have no jurisdiction in those matters. Any provision of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, including Order XXVI, r.8, must yield to the constitutional mandate in case of inconsistency. (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980----O.XXVI, R.8----“As far as practicable”----Fixing review before the same bench---Effect of Art.191A. Order XXVI, r.8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 provides that, “as far as practicable”, a review application shall be posted before the same bench that delivered the judgment sought to be reviewed, to ensure continuity and consistency. This directive is conditioned by practicability. After the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and insertion of Art.191A, only Judges nominated by the JCP can constitute CBs and exercise jurisdiction under Art.184(3) in the specified class of cases. Six members of the original SIC bench were not nominated to the CB; the constitutional committee therefore lacked power to include them. In these circumstances, it was not “practicable” within the meaning of O.XXVI, r.8 to fix the civil review petitions before the same bench, and the constitutional scheme under Art.191A necessarily prevailed. Cited Case: • Dewan Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2025 SC 394 (c) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.191A(1)----Judicial Commission of Pakistan----Scope of nomination power---Possibility of restoring original bench constitution. Art.191A(1) empowers the JCP to nominate such Judges of the Supreme Court, and for such term, as it may determine. There is no bar against nominating all Judges, including those who sat on the original bench, even for a limited purpose such as hearing specified review petitions. It was therefore constitutionally possible to request the JCP to expand the panel of nominated Judges to include all members of the original SIC bench, thereby enabling the constitutional committee to reconstitute a bench mirroring the original one and fully giving effect to O.XXVI, r.8 within the constitutional framework. The suggestion to refer the matter to the JCP in this manner, aimed at enhancing public confidence and judicial continuity, was not accepted by the majority of the CB, who chose instead to proceed with the review using only the Judges already nominated. (d) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.188----Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.8----Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O.XLVII, R.1----Review jurisdiction---Grounds---Error apparent on the face of record---Scope. Under Art.188 of the Constitution, as regulated by O.XXVI, r.8 of the Supreme Court Rules and O.XLVII, r.1 CPC, review lies on limited grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence not available despite due diligence; mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or other sufficient reason of a substantial and compelling character. Review is not an appeal in disguise and does not permit re-arguing the case to obtain a different outcome. Correctable error may be factual, constitutional or legal—such as misunderstanding or overlooking crucial facts, misinterpreting constitutional provisions, or misapplying legal rules—where the consequence is serious injustice or miscarriage of justice. The primary responsibility to identify and correct such errors rests with the Judges who rendered the judgment under review. (e) Elections----Constitution of Pakistan----Arts.17, 51(6)(d) & (e)----Election Act, 2017, Ss.2(xxviii), 68----Election Rules, 2017, rr.56, 94----Role of Returning Officers (ROs) and ECP----Party affiliation in nomination papers and Form-33----Refusal of symbol and “independent” status---Effect. For General Elections 2024, candidates filed nomination papers declaring party affiliation or independence. Under s.68 of the Election Act, 2017 read with r.56 of the Election Rules, 2017, ROs were bound to prepare Form-33 strictly on the basis of declarations in nomination papers; neither candidates nor ROs are empowered to alter those declarations once finalized. Thirty-nine candidates had declared themselves as PTI candidates in their nomination papers, yet ROs, relying on an Explanation to r.94 and refusal of a common electoral symbol, treated them as independents in Form-33. This action, adopted later by the ECP in allocation of reserved seats, constituted mis-exercise of jurisdiction, conflicted with Art.17 of the Constitution and s.2(xxviii) of the Act, and infringed constitutional rights of PTI, its candidates and voters to reserved seats under Art.51(6)(d) & (e). Refusal of an election symbol does not disenfranchise a political party nor extinguish its entitlement to reserved seats where candidates have contested as its nominees. The majority finding (with which this opinion concurs) that the 39 returned candidates were PTI-affiliated and that PTI retained its status and rights was therefore in conformity with the Constitution and law and disclosed no reviewable error. (f) Elections----Constitution of Pakistan----Arts.51(6)(d), 63A(1) & 187----Independent returned candidates joining a political party----Jurisdictional limits of “complete justice” power----Error in earlier judgment regarding 41 seats. Forty-one candidates had themselves declared “independent” in their nomination papers and were so reflected in Form-33. They never disputed this status before the ROs, the ECP, the Peshawar High Court, or the Supreme Court, nor did they challenge their subsequent decision to join the Sunni Ittehad Council or SIC’s claim for reserved seats. The contention that “peculiar circumstances” arising from a later Supreme Court judgment had compelled them to file as independents was unsupported by any evidence or appearance on their part, especially as many other candidates, including the 39, had contested as PTI nominees. To that extent, the ROs correctly listed the 41 as independents. After election, the 41 exercised their constitutional right under Art.51(6)(d) by joining SIC. In the original SIC judgment, the majority, invoking Art.187, declared these 41 as independents (which they already were) but further granted them a fresh option to join any political party within fifteen days. This Court has consistently held that once a member is elected as a party candidate or, having been elected independently, joins a party, he cannot subsequently leave that party or join another without attracting Art.63A(1) consequences. No authority, including the Court, can change a candidate’s status contrary to his declared position in nomination papers. Article 187 permits this Court to do complete justice only in matters “pending” before it. No matter concerning re-designation or fresh choice of party for those 41 members was pending, nor had such relief been sought. The majority’s earlier declaration granting them a new option to join another party thus exceeded jurisdiction under Art.187, ignored the scheme of Arts.51(6)(d) and 63A(1), and rested on presumptions unsupported by record—amounting to constitutional, legal and factual error apparent on the face of the record. To that extent, the judgment under review could not be sustained and was liable to be reviewed. (g) Elections----Reserved seats for women and non-Muslims----Proportional representation----Duty of ECP----Effect of RO/ECP illegality on PTI’s share. Under Art.51(6)(d) & (e) of the Constitution, reserved seats must be allocated through proportional representation on the basis of party lists, according to the total general seats secured by each political party from the relevant Province. The ECP was constitutionally obliged to allocate reserved seats in accordance with this system, irrespective of any specific request by a party. By treating the 39 declared PTI candidates as independents and refusing to allocate reserved seats to PTI on that basis, the ROs and ECP deprived the party, its candidates and the electorate of their constitutional entitlement. This illegality warranted correction under Art.187 in the main proceedings and did not furnish any ground for review regarding the 39 seats. (h) Review petitions----Sunni Ittehad Council case----Differing positions within the Bench----Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J (separate opinion). In light of the limited scope of review and the findings that (i) the original majority judgment was correct regarding the 39 PTI-affiliated returned candidates, but (ii) disclosed constitutional, legal and factual error in relation to the 41 independent returned candidates, the review petitions were, in the opinion of Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J, to be dismissed to the extent of the 39 seats and allowed to the extent of the 41 seats. The short order dated 27.06.2025, however, records that by majority of 7 Judges the civil review petitions were allowed in entirety, setting aside the impugned majority judgment of 12.07.2024 and restoring the judgment of the Peshawar High Court; Mandokhail, J partly allowed the review (maintaining the original order on 39 seats and reviewing the judgment only to the extent of 41 seats), while two other Judges (Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ) adopted a further distinct course by directing the ECP to undertake a de novo factual examination of all 80 returned candidates for the purpose of allocation of reserved seats. Disposition (per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J): Civil review petitions partly allowed; majority judgment in the SIC case maintained as to the 39 PTI-affiliated seats but reviewed and set aside as to the 41 independent seats. The short order of 27.06.2025, however, reflects that by majority the review petitions were allowed in full and the Peshawar High Court judgment was restored.

Summary: (a) Election Law – Rigging and Tampering of Election Results: ----Elections Act, 2017, Ss. 139, 142, 144---Challenge to election results on grounds of rigging and tampering of Forms-45, 46, 47, 48, and 49---Credibility of election results depends on transparency and integrity of the electoral process---In the present case, substantial evidence demonstrated manipulation and tampering of Forms-45 in 15 polling stations, resulting in an unjustified increase in votes for the appellant (Ali Madad Jattak)---Original Forms-45, issued to polling agents of contesting candidates, revealed significant discrepancies when compared with the consolidated results prepared by the Returning Officer---Discrepancies included overwriting, cuttings, absence of polling agents’ signatures, and unexplained additions of digits in vote counts---Held, the Returning Officer's misconduct and collusion with the appellant amounted to a deliberate manipulation of election results, violating the principles of free, fair, and transparent elections. (b) Election Law – Admissibility of Evidence in Election Petitions: ----Elections Act, 2017, Ss. 139, 142, 144---Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 72-77---Procedure under CPC (Order XIII, Rule 4)---Election Tribunal has discretionary powers regarding the admissibility of evidence and procedural requirements in the interest of justice---Documents produced, even if technically marked instead of being formally exhibited, are admissible if properly tendered through sworn affidavits and corroborated by witness testimony---Objections regarding the formal marking of documents, if not raised during trial, cannot be entertained at the appellate stage---Held, substantial compliance with evidentiary requirements suffices in election petitions where the integrity of the electoral process is in question. (c) Election Law – Role and Responsibility of Returning Officer (R.O.): ----Elections Act, 2017, S. 144---The Returning Officer is duty-bound to ensure transparency, impartiality, and fairness during the consolidation of election results---In the instant case, the R.O. antedated the consolidation process without notifying all contesting candidates and issued Form-49 under suspicious circumstances---The Returning Officer failed to justify procedural irregularities, including the absence of notice and transparency in consolidating results---Held, the R.O.’s actions were collusive, biased, and contributed significantly to election rigging and tampering of results. (d) Election Law – Doctrine of Substantial Compliance: ----Procedural requirements in election petitions, including the formal exhibition of documents, are subject to the doctrine of substantial compliance---Technical lapses in procedure, if they do not prejudice the opposing party or affect the core issue, do not vitiate the judicial process---Held, reliance on technical objections regarding document marking cannot override substantive evidence of rigging, especially when evidence remains unshaken under cross-examination. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhary vs. Mumtaz Ahmed Tarar (2016 SCMR 1) Khurshid Ali through Legal Heirs vs. Muhammad Hanif (PLD 2018 Lahore 132) Azizullah through Legal Heirs vs. Muhammad Hanif (PLD 2018 Lahore 132) Sudir Engineering Company vs Nitco Roadways Ltd [1995 (34) DRJ 86] R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami (Appeal No. 10585 of 1996) Shahin Shah vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2022 SCMR 1810) ----Disposition: Civil appeal dismissed. Judgment of the Election Tribunal upheld. Election results from 15 polling stations declared null and void. Directions issued for fresh polling in the said 15 stations under new electoral staff, with subsequent consolidation and announcement of final results.

Summary: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail dissented from the majority judgment ---- Issues: ---- 1) Whether SIC was entitled to reserved seats after independent candidates joined the party post-election. ---- 2) Whether PTI-affiliated candidates, declared as independents by Returning Officers (ROs), should be considered for reserved seats. ---- 3) Whether independent candidates can change their political affiliation post-election. ---- 4) Whether reserved seats for women and non-Muslims can be left vacant if not fully allocated to political parties. ---- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome (Dissent by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail): Holding: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail dissented from the majority judgment, holding that SIC should not be entitled to reserved seats since it did not contest the general elections nor submit its list of candidates for reserved seats within the required timeframe. The majority's decision to provide an option for independent candidates to join PTI was also not supported by Justice Mandokhail. ---- Reasoning: Entitlement of SIC: Justice Mandokhail emphasized that a political party must contest general seats and file its list of candidates for reserved seats by the deadline set by the ECP. Since SIC did not comply with these legal requirements, it could not be allocated reserved seats based on the independent candidates joining the party post-election. Justice Mandokhail maintained that allowing such an entitlement would contravene the constitutional and legal requirements governing elections. ---- PTI-Affiliated Candidates: Justice Mandokhail disagreed with the majority’s decision to offer independent candidates who had joined SIC the option to switch their affiliation to PTI within a specific time period. He argued that the Constitution and the Elections Act do not provide for such a post-election change of political affiliation, and any allowance for this would distort the electoral process. He believed that once a candidate declared themselves independent and was elected as such, they could not retroactively claim party affiliation. ---- Reserved Seats: Justice Mandokhail concurred with the view that the reserved seats for women and non-Muslims must be filled and not left vacant, as these groups have a constitutional right to representation. However, the allocation must strictly adhere to the procedures laid out in the Constitution and the Elections Act. SIC, having failed to comply with these procedures, was rightly denied the seats. Independents: Justice Mandokhail held that the independent candidates who chose to join SIC post-election exercised their constitutional right, and their status as independents could not be retroactively changed to benefit another political party. He opposed the majority’s stance that allowed for an option for these candidates to join PTI, maintaining that such actions would violate the established electoral rules. ---- Outcome: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail dissented from the majority's judgment, supporting the decision to deny SIC the reserved seats and rejecting the option for independent candidates to change their political affiliation post-election. ---- Citations/Precedents: PLD 2024 SC 698 – Progressive and purposive interpretation of the Constitution. PLD 2024 Peshawar 89 – Election law concerning political parties and independents. PLD 2024 SC 267 – Interpretation of political party status under election law. ---- Justice Mandokhail's dissent emphasized a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Election Act, arguing against the relaxation of procedural requirements to favor any political party.

Summary: Background: Both the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) filed applications (CMAs) seeking clarification regarding the Supreme Court's Short Order dated 12 July 2024, which was issued in Civil Appeals No. 333 and 334 of 2024. The ECP’s application followed the enactment of the Elections (Second Amendment) Act, 2024, which altered Sections 66 and 104 of the Elections Act, 2017, and added Section 104-A with retrospective effect. The ECP sought clarity on whether these amendments impact the earlier Short Order. Conversely, PTI contended that the amendments could not alter the Court’s Short Order as it was based on constitutional provisions. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether the Elections (Second Amendment) Act, 2024 could affect the Supreme Court's Short Order of 12 July 2024, especially with the retrospective insertion of Section 104-A. ------ 2) Whether the Court’s Short Order remains enforceable despite the legislative amendments. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court clarified that no further explanation of the Short Order was necessary. The Court emphasized that its Short Order was based on constitutional provisions ensuring the electorate’s right to proportional representation in reserved seats. As such, the newly enacted amendments in the Elections Act cannot retroactively affect the enforcement of the Court’s judgment. The Court also reiterated that its judgment has binding authority under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan and must be implemented in letter and spirit by the ECP. The Court dismissed the CMAs filed by the ECP and PTI, stating that the detailed judgment had already addressed all raised legal and constitutional issues. It reiterated that the amendments introduced after the Short Order would not have any bearing on the judgment, and the ECP is bound to comply with the earlier ruling. ------ Citations/Precedents: Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan

Summary: Background: The petitioner contested the General Elections 2024 from NA-48, Islamabad, and filed a petition before the Election Tribunal after the respondent was declared the winning candidate. During the proceedings, the respondent submitted a transfer application under Section 151 of the Elections Act, 2017, which the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) approved. The petitioner subsequently challenged the constitutionality of The Elections (Amendment) Ordinance, 2024, which amended Section 140 of the Act, allowing the appointment of a retired judge as Election Tribunal without the Chief Justice's consent. -----Issues: 1- Is Section 151 of the Elections Act, 2017, empowering the ECP to transfer election petitions, ultra vires to the Constitution? -----2- Should the transfer of election petitions require the consent of the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court? -----3- Can the ECP transfer cases involving allegations of bias? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the Election Tribunal is constitutionally recognized under Article 225 as a specialized forum for resolving election disputes and does not equate to a "Court" under Article 175 of the Constitution. Therefore, Section 151 of the Elections Act, which grants ECP the power to transfer election petitions, does not infringe on judicial independence or violate the separation of powers. Furthermore, the ECP, as a constitutional entity, is distinct from the executive branch, and its authority in appointing or transferring tribunals is within its regulatory powers. The court also declined to mandate judicial consultation in transfer decisions, emphasizing that such inclusion is the legislature's prerogative. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1966 Supreme Court 1 (Mian Jamal Shah v. Member, Election Commission) PLD 1993 Supreme Court 109 (Pakistan Fisheries Limited v. United Bank Limited) 2001 SCMR 410 (Tri-Star Polyester Limited v. Citi Bank) PLD 2010 Supreme Court 735 (Let. Gen. Salahuddin Tirmizi v. ECP) PLD 1998 Supreme Court 1445 (Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan) PLD 2015 Supreme Court 401 (District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan) PLD 2013 Supreme Court 501 (Sh. Riaz Ul Haq v. Federation of Pakistan) PLD 2021 Supreme Court 825 (Reference No.1 of 2020)

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: 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: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:This intra-court appeal was directed against the order of a single judge in chambers from the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench. The appeal stemmed from an earlier decision related to the elections for the National Assembly constituency NA-154, Lodhran-I. The election, held on February 8, 2024, resulted in Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon securing 134,937 votes against Abdul Rehman Khan Kanju, who received 128,438 votes. Kanju's application for a recount was initially unaddressed, leading him to approach the Election Commission. Despite the recount altering the outcome in Kanju's favor, the court initially supported the recount but later faced legal challenges regarding the jurisdiction and authority under which the recount was ordered.----Issues:Whether the Election Commission had the authority to order a recount after the declaration of election results.The legal appropriateness of the actions taken by the Election Commission concerning the recount requests and subsequent handling.The maintainability of the appeal against the decision of the single judge in chambers, based on the specific provisions of the Election Act and the Laws Reforms Ordinance.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court upheld the decision of the single judge, affirming that the Election Commission acted outside its jurisdiction when ordering the recount after the official results were declared. The court held:The Election Commission lacks authority to command a recount after the final consolidation of results and official declaration of the winning candidate as outlined under Section 95 of the Elections Act, 2017.The actions taken post-election were contrary to the legal mandates and timelines specified in the Elections Act.The appeal against the single judge's decision was deemed maintainable, dismissing claims that an alternative remedy (review or appeal to the Supreme Court) was required before approaching the High Court.---Citations/Precedents:Elections Act, 2017: Sections 95 and 98 detail procedures for handling election results and recounts.Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972: Provides context on when appeals can be made against decisions of election authorities.Cases cited for legal precedents include:Sonia Raza v. Election Commission of Pakistan and others (2018 CLC 1966)Ejaz Ahmed Sandhu and another v. Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and others (2018 SCMR 1367)Muhammad Mamoon Tarar v. Election Commission of Pakistan and others (2016 CLC 1708)Bartha Ram v Lala Mehar Lal Bheel and another (1995 SCMR 684)