Summary: Review Petitions (Sunni Ittehad Council/Reserved Seats Case), decided on 06 May 2025 with dissenting Note by Justice Ayesha Malik. ---- Majority Judgment (Amin-ud-Din Khan, J. – For Seven Judges) (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 17(2), 51, 106, 184(3), 187, 188 & 225–––Election Commission of Pakistan–––Reserved seats for women and non-Muslims–––Nature, purpose and constitutional scheme–––Interpretation–––Scope of review jurisdiction. Held, that reserved seats under Arts. 51 and 106 are an integral component of representative democracy, meant to ensure inclusiveness of marginalized groups; however, their allocation remains party-based and contingent on valid participation through submission of party lists before elections. The Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) had not submitted valid lists within statutory time; nevertheless, the earlier judgment (2024 PLD SC ___) incorrectly excluded the claim of seats solely because PTI candidates joined SIC post-poll. Such exclusion distorted proportional representation and denied voters’ constitutional right to representation. Court, exercising review jurisdiction under Art.188, revisited manifest error in interpreting Articles 51 & 106 and restored the legal position settled by the Peshawar High Court. (b) Election Act, 2017 (XXXIII of 2017) ----Ss. 60, 66, 104, 209 & Fourth Schedule–––Party lists for reserved seats–––Submission and substitution–––Consequences of omission–––ECP’s jurisdiction. Under s.104(1), party lists must be filed before the Commission within prescribed period; however, law does not bar consideration of subsequent lawful affiliation where a political party retains electoral identity through its symbol or allied group. ECP’s decision to treat SIC as ineligible was beyond jurisdiction and contrary to the spirit of participatory democracy. Held, that ECP’s action violated Articles 17(2) and 218(3) of the Constitution; hence, Peshawar High Court rightly set aside the Commission’s order. (c) Constitutional Jurisdiction & Review under Art. 188 ----Maintainability of review–––Grounds–––Error apparent on face of record–––Scope of “complete justice” under Art. 187. Held, that earlier three-member majority judgment committed an error apparent on face of record by granting relief to an entity (PTI) not party before the Court and by substituting statutory scheme with judicial innovation. Such exercise exceeded jurisdiction under Art.184(3). In review, the Court may correct its own constitutional error to uphold supremacy of Constitution; principle of functus officio does not bar review to correct manifest illegality. Jurisdiction under Art.188 read with Order XXVI, r.6 of Supreme Court Rules permits reconsideration of constitutional misinterpretation. (d) Principles of Interpretation –– Mandatory Timeframes and Jurisdictional Bars Held, that statutory requirements for filing party lists are directory in so far as they ensure procedural order, not substantive disenfranchisement. Technical lapses cannot defeat constitutional rights of representation. ECP’s insistence on procedural rigidity without constitutional foundation amounted to mal-exercise of authority. (e) Separation of Powers –– Election Disputes –– Art. 225 Held, that Art.225 restricts election disputes to election tribunals; however, questions of constitutional interpretation relating to representational rights fall within the Supreme Court’s review jurisdiction. The 2024 judgment exceeded the limits of “complete justice” under Art.187 by re-distributing seats contrary to electoral law; hence, liable to recall. (f) Fundamental Rights –– Freedom of Association & Political Representation ----Art.17(2)–––Right to form or be member of political party–––Proportional representation through reserved seats as extension of fundamental right–––Denial of representation unconstitutional. Held, that exclusion of voters represented by PTI-backed independents from allocation of reserved seats offended Art.17(2). Fundamental right to political participation cannot be curtailed by administrative interpretation or judicial construction inconsistent with the text and spirit of Constitution. (g) Precedents Relied Upon • Workers’ Party Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 681 • Muhammad Saeed v. ECP PLD 2023 SC 70 • Benazir Bhutto v. Federation PLD 1988 SC 416 • Lahore High Court judgment in E.T.R. No.01/05 etc., restored Disposition (Majority): Review Petitions Allowed –– Impugned Judgment dated 13.03.2024 set aside –– Peshawar High Court judgment restored –– Orders of ECP annulled –– Reserved seats allocated to Sunni Ittehad Council as per law. Dissenting Note (Ayesha A. Malik, J.) (h) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 187, 188 & 184(3)–––Scope of review jurisdiction–––Distinction between appeal and review–––Finality of Supreme Court judgments. Held, that review is not a rehearing of the case; its scope is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioners failed to identify any such error. The review petitions sought re-appraisal of factual and legal conclusions already determined; therefore, were misconceived and incompetent. (i) Art. 187 –– “Complete Justice” –– Limits of power The power of “complete justice” cannot be used to subvert finality of judicial decisions or to alter outcomes reached after full hearing. The majority, by reopening concluded findings, exceeded the permissible scope of Art.188 and Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules. (j) Constitutional Discipline –– Finality of Judgments Reiterated, that finality of judgments is a constitutional imperative ensuring legal certainty and public confidence. Allowing review as a second appeal undermines judicial stability and erodes institutional credibility. (k) Result Held, that review petitions ought to have been dismissed; original judgment of 13.03.2024 contained no patent error; majority’s decision amounts to re-hearing rather than review. Disposition (Dissent): Review Petitions Dismissed. Final Outcome: By Majority (7 to 2): Review petitions allowed; judgment of 13 March 2024 recalled; Peshawar High Court judgment restored; dissenting note by Ayesha A. Malik, J.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Art. 184(3), Arts. 199, 17, 218(3), 225 & 187 --- Review jurisdiction of Supreme Court --- Allocation of reserved seats to political parties --- Scope and limitations --- Role of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) --- Maintainability and scope of judicial review --- Restoration of High Court judgment. Review petitions were filed against the Supreme Court’s majority judgment dated 12.07.2024, which had set aside the Peshawar High Court judgment and directed allocation of reserved seats in favour of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). A reconstituted larger Bench comprising 10 judges, after recusal of one member and earlier dismissal of the petitions by two judges, heard the review petitions. By majority of 7 to 3, the Supreme Court allowed the review petitions, set aside the earlier majority judgment, and restored the judgment of the Peshawar High Court. Consequently, Civil Appeals No. 333 & 334 of 2024 filed by SIC were dismissed. Majority held that allocation of reserved seats required strict adherence to the principles laid down under the Constitution and the Elections Act, 2017, and that the judgment rendered earlier did not withstand judicial scrutiny under review jurisdiction. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail partly allowed the review petitions, maintaining allocation of 39 seats but differing on 41 seats, thereby partially departing from the original majority judgment. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi also allowed the review petitions with directions to the Election Commission of Pakistan to conduct a de novo examination of the returned candidates' nomination papers and declarations regarding party affiliation for all 80 seats, and to decide the matter afresh within 15 days. Court observed that questions of fact and affiliation could not be conclusively resolved by the High Court or the Supreme Court in its original or review jurisdiction, hence the matter should be examined by the ECP as the competent authority under the Constitution and relevant laws. Disposition: Civil Review Petitions allowed by majority; earlier judgment dated 12.07.2024 set aside; Civil Appeals dismissed; Peshawar High Court judgment restored; ECP directed to conduct fresh scrutiny for seat allocation within 15 days.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 63A Defection from political party---Restoration of membership---Authority of the Election Commission. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) does not have the authority to confirm the declaration of defection made by the party head without adherence to the procedural safeguards under Art. 63A of the Constitution. In this case, the appellant's membership in the National Assembly from NA-262 was restored as an independent member after the Court found procedural irregularities in the ECP's decision to confirm the party head's declaration of defection. -------- (b) Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) Scope of powers under Art. 63A---Procedural fairness. The ECP’s role under Art. 63A is quasi-judicial, requiring adherence to principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that the confirmation of defection declarations must follow due process, including providing the accused member an opportunity to contest allegations of defection. Cited principles: Procedural fairness Right to due process -------- (c) Parliamentary membership Restoration of seat---Independent status post-defection. Where defection from a political party is not validly established, the member retains their parliamentary seat as an independent member. The Court held that the appellant, despite being disassociated from the Parliamentary Party of PML(N), was entitled to continue as a member of the National Assembly. -------- (d) Interpretation of party head's declaration Binding nature of declarations---Judicial oversight. Declarations of defection by party heads are subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure compliance with constitutional and legal safeguards. The party head’s authority under Art. 63A does not override the member’s right to due process and a fair hearing.

Summary: ICA in W.P. 2705/2023 Election Other (SB), [ Muhammad Tahir Nizami - VS -FOP through Secretary of NHSR&C, Islamabad, etc. ] (a) Election Law – National Council for Homeopathy (NCH) –– ---- Unani Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965 – Sections 9(3) & 9(5) – Rule 18 of the Unani Ayurvedic and Homeopathic System Medicine Rules, 1980 –– Challenge to eligibility of sitting members to contest elections prior to expiry of their term – Held, Section 9(3) of the 1965 Act expressly states that members shall be eligible for re-election only “on the expiry of the prescribed term” – Since the members whose candidacy was challenged filed their nomination papers before the expiration of their term, they were ineligible to contest – Nomination papers wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer were invalid. (b) Election Law – Mandatory Timeline for Elections –– ---- Unani Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965 – Section 9(5) – Rule 18 of the 1980 Rules –– Elections to NCH must be held at least three months before the expiry of the term of the existing members – Held, election schedule issued on 20.07.2023 for elections on 20.09.2023 complied with Section 9(5) and Rule 18, as the term was set to expire on 15.11.2023 – Any deviation from this mandatory timeline would be unlawful. (c) Procedural Illegality – Issuance of New Election Schedule –– ---- Fresh election schedule issued on 20.09.2024 declared unlawful – Held, after the original election process was halted due to litigation, the correct course was to resume elections from the stage where they were suspended – NCH acted in violation of the 1965 Act and the 1980 Rules by announcing a new election schedule instead of continuing the process from where it was interrupted – Such action was held to be “contumacious disregard” of the Court’s prior ruling. (d) Election Law – Disqualification at Nomination Stage –– ---- Key date for determining eligibility is the date of nomination – Candidates must be eligible at the time of filing their nomination papers, not at a later stage – Held, since the sitting members of the Council were still in office when they filed their nomination papers, they were ineligible to contest – Their ineligibility could not be cured by the issuance of a fresh election schedule after their term had expired. (e) Judicial Review of Election Process –– ---- Unlawful change in election procedure warrants judicial intervention – Held, courts have jurisdiction to review and invalidate election schedules that violate statutory provisions – Issuance of an altogether new election schedule instead of continuing the halted process was arbitrary and ultra vires – Courts directed NCH to resume elections from the point where they were stopped on 12.09.2023. (f) Case Law on Election Disqualification –– ---- Key principle: Eligibility must exist at the time of nomination – Candidates who fail to meet statutory criteria at the time of filing their nomination papers cannot later acquire eligibility through subsequent developments. Reliance placed on: (i) PLD 2019 SC 201 (Suo Moto Case No.8 of 2018) – Dual nationals must renounce foreign nationality before filing nomination papers. (ii) PLD 2007 SC 277 – Proposer and seconder must be valid voters at the time of nomination. (iii) 2023 SCMR 370 – Candidate's renunciation of foreign nationality after filing nomination papers does not validate an otherwise ineligible candidacy. Disposition: ---- Intra Court Appeals (ICAs) No. 373, 374, 382, 383, 384, 385, and 386 of 2023 dismissed – Writ Petitions (W.Ps) No. 2967, 3117, and 3176 of 2024 allowed – Issuance of new election schedule declared unlawful – NCH directed to resume election process from the point where it was halted on 12.09.2023.

Summary: (a) Election Law—Mandatory submission of original affidavits: Election Act, 2017—Ss. 142, 143, 144 & 145 Filing of election petitions—Mandatory procedural requirements—Non-compliance with statutory provisions—Mandatory submission of original affidavits along with election petitions under S.144 of the Act of 2017—Failure to comply renders election petitions deficient and subject to summary rejection under S.145 of the Act. In the present case, the respondent’s election petition was based on photocopies of affidavits instead of the original affidavits solemnized on oath as required by S.144 of the Election Act, 2017. The Supreme Court held that the Election Tribunal’s failure to address this primary procedural defect undermined the maintainability of the petition. Compliance with S.144(2)(a) was emphasized as a condition precedent for entertaining election petitions. The appeal was allowed on this ground without examining the merits of allegations concerning polling irregularities. ----Cited Cases: Cal. (R) Muhammad Shabir Awan vs. Raja Saghir Ahmed (PLD 2023 Lahore 458) Abdul Qahar Khan Wadari vs. Zamarak Khan Achakzai (PLD 2020 BHC 47) Malik Umar Aslam vs. Sumera Malik (PLD 2007 SC 362) (b) Election Tribunal’s oversight—Dubious polling allegations vs. procedural compliance: The Election Tribunal had invalidated the election results from 16 polling stations based on allegations of irregularities, despite the respondent's failure to provide original affidavits. The Court held that the Tribunal had erred in prioritizing the alleged dubious polling over the legal defect of non-compliance with mandatory affidavit submission requirements. Proper sequencing of issues was critical for the Tribunal's decision-making. ----Cited Cases: Lt. Col. (Rtd.) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah vs. Mehr Khalid Mehmood Sargana (2015 SCMR 1585) Engr. Iqbal Zafar Jhagra vs. Khalilur Rehman (2000 SCMR 250) (c) Election Law—Fresh polling directive: The Election Tribunal’s direction for fresh polling at 16 stations was challenged by the appellant on grounds of lack of substantial evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the absence of original affidavits undermined the respondent’s credibility in proving the irregularities. The Tribunal’s order for fresh polling was set aside as procedurally flawed. ----Cited Cases: Hina Manzoor vs. Malik Abrar Ahmed (PLD 2015 SC 396) Usman Dar vs. Khawaja Muhammad Asif (2017 SCMR 292)

Summary: (a) Election Law—Allegations of corrupt practices in elections: Election Act, 2017—Ss. 139, 144 & 145 Allegations of illegal and corrupt practices—Burden of proof—Mandatory requirements of law—When corrupt practices are alleged in election petitions, the burden lies on the petitioner to substantiate claims with cogent and credible evidence. In the present case, the appellant alleged corrupt practices by Respondent No.4 at three polling stations but failed to provide substantial evidence beyond a hypothesis. The Court reiterated that allegations of corrupt practices are quasi-criminal in nature, requiring strong and plausible proof, and cannot be based on mere speculation. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Saeed vs. Election Petitions Tribunal, West Pakistan (PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 91) Khan Muhammad Yousaf Khan Khattak vs. S.M. Ayub (PLD 1973 SC 160) (b) Election Law—Mandatory submission of original affidavits: Election Act, 2017—Ss. 144(2) & 145 Mandatory procedural compliance—Failure to produce original affidavits—Petitioners must submit a complete list of witnesses along with original affidavits under S.144(2) of the Election Act, 2017. In the present case, the appellant presented only photocopies of affidavits, failing to meet the mandatory procedural requirement. The Court emphasized that this legal deficiency could not be cured by cross-examination conducted on the basis of photocopies. The Election Tribunal correctly dismissed the petition based on this procedural lapse. ----Cited Cases: Malik Umar Aslam vs. Sumera Malik (PLD 2007 SC 362) Hina Manzoor vs. Malik Abrar Ahmed (PLD 2015 SC 396) (c) Election Law—Polling irregularities and voter turnout discrepancies: The appellant alleged unusually high voter turnout exceeding 70% at three polling stations compared to the historical turnout of 5%. However, no corroborative evidence of rigging or tampering was presented. The Court observed that discrepancies in voter turnout alone, without substantiated proof of manipulation, cannot invalidate election results. ----Cited Cases: Usman Dar vs. Khawaja Muhammad Asif (2017 SCMR 292) (d) Election Law—Role of presiding officers and polling agents: The presiding officers and polling agents confirmed that polling occurred in a peaceful manner with no formal complaints filed regarding rigging or manipulation. The Court held that the absence of complaints from official sources further weakened the appellant’s allegations. ----Cited Cases: Lt. Col. (Rtd.) Ghazanfar Abbas Shah vs. Mehr Khalid Mehmood Sargana (2015 SCMR 1585)

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: Background: This case involves two writ petitions questioning the maintainability of election petitions that were dismissed by an Election Tribunal. The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's orders under the Constitution of Pakistan, invoking various legal provisions including the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Qanoon-e-Shahadat, and the Elections Act, 2017. The core issue revolves around whether interlocutory orders of an Election Tribunal can be questioned under writ jurisdiction when no appeal is provided by the law. -----Issues: ---1- Whether writ petitions challenging interlocutory orders of an Election Tribunal are maintainable. ---2- Whether the election petitions filed by the respondents were barred under various provisions of law, including the Elections Act, CPC, and Qanoon-e-Shahadat. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that election disputes are primarily governed by the Elections Act, 2017, which provides a comprehensive mechanism for resolving election-related disputes. The Act does not permit appeals against interlocutory orders, and the purpose is to ensure expeditious resolution of election disputes. The court emphasized that allowing writ petitions against interlocutory orders would frustrate the legislative intent of speedy justice in election matters. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed as not maintainable, as interlocutory orders cannot be challenged in the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Raza Havat Hirai and others Vs. The Election Commission of Pakistan and others (2015 SCMR 233) Sheila B. Charles Vs. Election Tribunal and another (1997 SCMR 941) Rashida Yagoob Vs. Election Tribunal and others (2017 CLC Note 17) Muhammad Iiaz Ahmad Chaudhry Vs. Election Tribunal and others (2014 CLC 542) Habib Bank Limited Vs. Judge, Banking Court and others (2015 CLD 1875) Ali Adnan Dar through Attorney Vs. Judge, Family Court and others (PLD 2016 Lahore 73) Mian Aurangzeb Noor Vs. Rent Controller, Lahore and others (2012 CLC 1729) Muhammad Abdullah Yousaf and others Vs. Miss Nida Avub and others (PLD 2005 SC 252) Shaikh All-Ud-Din Vs. Election Tribunal, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (2009 YLR 1930) Ch. Muhammad Arif Hussain Vs. Rao Sikandar Iqbal and others (PLD 2008 SC 429) The President, All Pakistan Women Association, Peshawar Cantt Vs. Muhammad Akbar Awan and others (2020 SCMR 260) -----Quote: ''The legislature, in its wisdom, has purposely not provided for a forum to challenge interlocutory orders of the Election Tribunals in "the Act"; similarly, Article 225 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 clearly bars the jurisdiction of this Court when election dispute is proceeded in the Election Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has, in somewhat similar matter, held that "the appellant will be entitled to raise all pleas available to him including any preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition which has been overruled by the election tribunal in the appellate forum"''

Summary: Background: The appellant, challenged the election results of the Provincial Balochistan constituency PB-14 Naseerabad-II in the Election Tribunal Balochistan. The elections, held on 8 February 2024, saw the respondent, Muhammad Khan (Respondent No. 11), secure the highest number of votes (21,103), while the appellant received 19,093 votes. The appellant claimed that the results were manipulated through the influence of Respondent No. 11 on certain Presiding Officers. The appellant's request for a recount led to a reduction in votes for both candidates, but Respondent No. 11 still won with a margin of 1,919 votes. The appellant filed an election petition, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. -----Issues: 1- Did Respondent No. 11 influence the Presiding Officers to manipulate the election results? ----2- Was the appellant's claim regarding tampering of Form-45s substantiated? ----3- Did the recount of votes confirm the appellant's allegations of electoral fraud? ----4- Did the Tribunal err in summoning Presiding Officers as court witnesses instead of allowing the appellant’s application to summon them? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Election Tribunal, dismissing the appellant's claims. The Court found that: The allegations of influence and manipulation by Respondent No. 11 over the Presiding Officers were not established. The appellant failed to provide convincing evidence linking the respondent to any wrongdoing. The Court noted that Form-45s submitted by the appellant did not match the actual forms used during the election, and the alleged tampering could not be proven despite extensive cross-examination of the Presiding Officers. The recount of votes, which was carried out transparently, reduced votes for both candidates but still confirmed Respondent No. 11's victory by 1,919 votes. The appellant’s claims of electoral fraud were unfounded. The Tribunal’s decision to summon the Presiding Officers as court witnesses was deemed appropriate, and it did not disadvantage the appellant. Instead, it allowed the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which did not support his claims. The Court concluded that the Tribunal had properly examined all aspects of the case and upheld the fairness of the election results. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's judgment was confirmed. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision declaring Respondent No. 11 as the winning candidate was upheld.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---Arts. 218(3), 222 & 225---Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP)---Jurisdiction and limitations---Scope of powers under Article 218(3)---The ECP is constitutionally mandated to conduct free and fair elections but does not possess judicial or quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate election disputes after the conclusion of the election process---Once the names of returned candidates are notified in the official Gazette, the ECP becomes functus officio and cannot suspend or annul such notifications---Election disputes must be adjudicated exclusively by Election Tribunals established under the Elections Act, 2017. Cited Cases: • Javaid Hashmi's case • Muhammad Salman's case (b) Elections Act, 2017 ---S. 8, S. 4 & Chapter IX---Election disputes---Mechanism for resolution---Where the law provides a specific procedure for addressing disputes, the ECP cannot act outside its prescribed jurisdiction---Disputes arising after the notification of returned candidates must be resolved by Election Tribunals, not the ECP, under the legislative framework of the Elections Act, 2017---Acts outside this framework are declared null and void. Cited Cases: • Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (Pvt) Ltd. • Muhammad Akram's case (c) Election Commission of Pakistan ---Powers under Article 218(3)---Limitations---The general powers of the ECP under Article 218(3) to ensure fair elections are not absolute and must align with the constitutional framework and statutory provisions of the Elections Act, 2017---The ECP cannot independently adjudicate intricate disputes involving the validity of candidates after the notification of results---Such powers are supplementary and cannot override or replace statutory provisions. Cited Cases: • Zulfiqar Ali Bhatti's case (d) Doctrine of Functus Officio ---Applicability to ECP---After notifying the names of returned candidates in the official Gazette, the ECP loses jurisdiction over the matter and cannot issue orders affecting the election results---Legal disputes post-election must be addressed through Election Tribunals as per Articles 222 and 225 of the Constitution and relevant statutory laws. Cited Cases: • Jameel Qadir's case (e) Election Tribunals ---Exclusive jurisdiction over post-election disputes---Election disputes regarding qualifications or disqualifications of candidates must be brought before the Election Tribunals under the statutory mechanism---Actions by the ECP in such disputes are declared without lawful authority. ----Disposition: Petition allowed---Impugned notice dated 11.03.2024 and related proceedings by the ECP were declared illegal and without jurisdiction. Candidate notified as returned for reserved seat in the National Assembly from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa reinstated.