Summary: The review focuses on allegations of partiality and bias by the Attorney General, National Accountability Bureau (NAB), and a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) during an inquiry into the conduct of individuals including the petitioner and respondent Malik Riaz Hussain.The court, after hearing arguments, transferred the inquiry and investigation from NAB to a Commission. The petitioner raised concerns about the Attorney General's alleged influence on NAB to favor Malik Riaz Hussain. The objection centered on the Attorney General's failure to disclose his professional relationship with Malik Riaz Hussain during the proceedings.The petitioner argued that the Attorney General, in a letter dated 18.6.2012, exceeded the scope of the court's order by influencing NAB beyond the directive to "set the machinery of the State in motion." The letter requested the Chairman of NAB to constitute a team, including officers from NAB, FIA, and Islamabad Police, for an inquiry, going beyond the court's instructions.The court found the Attorney General's actions problematic, indicating a lack of disclosure and potential interference with the independence of NAB. The court expressed concern that NAB may have yielded to outside influence, compromising its ability to conduct an impartial inquiry. The review highlighted the need for transparency and adherence to court directives in such investigations. The court observes that there is a reasonable basis for the petitioner's allegation that the Attorney General did not act fairly and impartially. Due to the seriousness of the matter, the court decides to issue a notice to the Attorney General, providing him an opportunity to explain his conduct.Additionally, the court criticizes the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for its letters to the Registrar of the Court, stating that the letters lacked transparency and violated established legal norms. The court emphasizes the need for NAB to act with due care and competence, especially in light of the guidelines provided by precedent cases.Furthermore, the document discusses a breach of security procedures involving a member of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), Faisal Bashir Memon. CCTV footage is screened in court to investigate the breach, and a three-member inquiry committee concludes that Memon overstepped his duties to please a litigant, recommending departmental action against him under Efficiency and Discipline Rules and police rules. The court expresses concern about the potential lack of objectivity in NAB's investigation. --- The court, underscoring the cardinal principles of equity and transparency in the legal framework, emphasizes the imperative for individuals of all echelons to submit to the rule of law. In this vein, the court cites the case of Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani versus Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan (2012 SCMR 424), illustrating the principle that even individuals of high standing must subject themselves to legal processes.The discourse draws additional depth from a Hadith of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), gleaned from Sahih Bukhari, which cautions against exempting high-ranking individuals from accountability for transgressions. Furthermore, the court references a pertinent verse from the Holy Quran, specifically Al-Qur'an, 004.135 (An-Nisa), emphasizing the unwavering commitment to justice, irrespective of the stature or economic standing of the individuals involved.

Summary: Rejected the appellant's nomination papers for PP-174. The rejection was based on the proposer Muhammad Ramzan's name not being found on the electoral roll for PP-174, as required by the Elections Act, 2017.The appellant argued that the error was inadvertent, resulting from confusion between two constituencies (PP-173 and PP-174), and requested substitution with another proposer, Waqas Tassawer. Legal precedents, including Rana Muhammad Tajammal Hussain v. Rana Shaukat Mahmood (PLD 2007 SC 277) and Sharafat Ali v. D.R.O. and others (2008 SCMR 539), were cited to support the contention that such defects are curable.However, the Election Commission of Pakistan opposed the appeal, emphasizing the foundational role of the proposer in the nomination process and arguing that defects related to proposer eligibility are not curable. The legal advisor cited relevant sections of the Elections Act, 2017, and referred to Jamshed Iqbal Cheema v. Election Appellate Tribunal (2022 CLC 463) and Ijaz v. Returning Officer PP-115, Faisalabad (W.P. No.223502 of 2018), as precedents.After careful consideration, the court upheld the Returning Officer's decision, citing the mandatory nature of proposer requirements under the Act. The court emphasized that defects related to the proposer's eligibility are of a substantial nature and cannot be cured at a subsequent stage. The appellant's argument that the defect was curable was deemed meritless, and the appeal was dismissed. The court approved the order for reporting.

Summary: The rejection was primarily based on the uncertainty regarding the genuineness of the signatures of the candidate, proposer, and seconder.During the proceedings on 06.01.2024, the Returning Officer confirmed the authenticity of the signatures after being asked by the Court. However, another objection was vaguely referred to, related to the absence of particulars of a bank account for documenting election expenses in the declaration against item No.3 of the nomination papers.The Legal Advisor of the Election Commission of Pakistan explained that the relevant provision is section 60(2)(b), amended by the Elections Amendment (Act), 2023, requiring candidates to provide bank account details at the scrutiny of nomination papers. The appellant's counsel argued that a dormant account had been reactivated for election expenses, and a certified copy of the bank statement was presented.The Court, citing Yasir Aftab v. Irfan Gull and others (2023 SCMR 206), emphasized that scrutiny is a two-step process, and Returning Officers have the discretion to allow curing of certain defects if immediately remediable by the appellant. The omission regarding the bank account, though noted by the Returning Officer, was not properly recorded in the order. The appellant promptly provided the required bank statement, leading the Court to conclude that the defect was cured.Therefore, the Court declared the order of the Returning Officer legally untenable, set it aside, and directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination papers. The concerned Returning Officer was instructed to include the appellant's name in the revised list of validly nominated candidates in accordance with section 64(3) of the Elections Act, 2017.

Summary: ''The term "default" used in Article 63 of the "Constitution" is though nowhere defined in the "Constitution", however, in the case of IRFAN GUL MAGSI v. Haji ABDUL KHALIQ SOOMRO and others (1999 PTD 1302), Election Tribunal Sindh outlined the definition of "default" in the following terms: - (Para 11 of the judgment). After having an overview of the principles laid down hereinabove, it can safely be inferred that the word "default" used in Article 63 of the "Constitution" does not import ordinary meaning rather it connotes an element of willful and deliberate failure to fulfil an obligation and negligence in the performance of the duty. In the case of MUHAMMAD JAMSHED v. ELECTION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others (2018 CLC 1330) a learned Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar proposition held in Para.11 and 12.'' --- Returning Officer for PP-09, Rawalpindi-III rejected the appellant's nomination papers. The basis of rejection was the appellant's classification as a defaulter of Suit Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL).Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf presided over the appeal and considered arguments from the appellant's counsel, the Election Commission of Pakistan, and SNGPL's representatives. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution, which disqualifies individuals who have defaulted in payment of Government dues and utility expenses exceeding ten thousand rupees for over six months.The appellant's nomination papers were rejected based on SNGPL's report, indicating a default of Rs. 56,584,620/-. The judgment referred to the definition of "default" established in the case of IRFAN GUL MAGSI v. Haji ABDUL KHALIQ SOOMRO (1999 PTD 1302), emphasizing that "default" implies a willful and deliberate failure to fulfill an obligation and negligence in duty performance.Additionally, the judgment cited the case of MUHAMMAD JAMSHED v. ELECTION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (2018 CLC 1330), highlighting the need for strict construction of Article 63 and asserting that disqualifications should not be based solely on un-liquidated claims by financial institutions.The judgment concluded that the appellant's default was yet to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, as a suit was pending. Therefore, the Returning Officer's decision to reject the nomination papers was deemed premature and legally untenable. The appeal was allowed, and the nomination papers of the appellant were accepted. The order was to be transmitted to the Returning Officer for compliance with Rule 54(5) of the Election Rules, 2017.

Summary: ''Before adjudging the validity of the objection or the propriety of the impugned order, it would be advantageous to first have an overview of the provisions of law prescribing disqualifications for membership of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). To this effect first of the series is Article 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (reproduced). Adverting to the ground that the appellant is proclaimed offender as per report of the District Police Officer, Attock. It is manifestly clear that mere registration of a criminal case against a candidate or his purported abscondence would not impede as disqualification in his way to contest the election. Reliance in this respect can be placed on Sheikh MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 19 others (2016 SCMR 733). 5. So far failure by the appellant, her proposer and seconder to appear before the "R.O." is concerned, suffice to observe that Chapter V of the "Act, 2017" deals with the conduct of elections of the assemblies. Section 60 of the Act ibid provides the manner for nomination for election. In terms whereof, the appellant submitted her nomination papers whereas Sajjad Haider Khan and Muhammad Rafique Khan stood her proposer and seconder, respectively. Section 62 of the "Act, 2017" provides the procedure for scrutiny of nomination papers and in terms of sub-section (1) any voter of a constituency may file objections to the candidature of a candidate of that constituency who has been nominated or whose name has been included in the party list submitted by a political party for election to an Assembly before the "R.O." within the period specified by the Election Commission for the scrutiny of nomination papers of candidates contesting election to an Assembly.'' --- The rejection was based on several grounds, including Eman Waseem being declared a "Proclaimed Offender" as per a letter from the District Police Officer, Attock, and a Baluchistan High Court judgment. Additionally, the absence of the candidate, proposer, and seconder during scrutiny raised concerns about the validity of their signatures. It was noted that Eman Waseem, despite owning land, had not deposited Agricultural Income Tax (AIT) in the government treasury.On January 4, 2024, Mirza Viqas Rauf delivered the judgment, addressing these grounds. The court clarified that the mere registration of a criminal case or the candidate's purported abscondence does not automatically disqualify them from elections, citing precedent (Sheikh MUHAMMAD AKRAM versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 19 others, 2016 SCMR 733). Regarding the absence during scrutiny, the judgment emphasized that the presence of proposer and seconder is optional, and rejection solely on this ground was not justified.The judgment highlighted the Returning Officer's power to reject nomination papers if signatures are not genuine but noted that no summary inquiry had been conducted to verify the signatures. It also questioned the objector's standing and suggested possible collaboration between the objector and the appellant's adversaries.Acknowledging the complaint of highhandedness by law enforcement agencies preventing the appellant from contesting the election, an offer was made to produce the proposer and seconder with necessary protection. The judgment set aside the R.O.'s order and accepted Eman Waseem's nomination papers. The court directed the copy of the judgment to be transmitted to the R.O. for compliance.

Summary: Delimitation of constituencies has to be made with regard to the distribution of population in geographically compact areas, physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units, facility of communication and public convenience and other cognate factors to ensure homogeneity in creation of constituencies. In the present case after delimitation proceedings constituency No.PP-176 falls within center of constituency No.PP-175 whereby contiguity of constituency No.PP-175 seems to have been disrupted, which is apparently not in accordance with the principles of delimitation of constituencies provided in Section 20 of the Election Act, 2017 and in these circumstances it would be appropriate to set aside final delimitation of constituencies made through orders dated 19.07.2022 and 05.08.2022 to the extent of constituency Nos.PP-175 and PP-176 and remand the matter to Election Commission of Pakistan for deciding the same afresh after providing proper opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

Summary: The rejection was based on the non-availability of the appellant, his proposer, and seconder during the scrutiny stage --- Malik Zaheer Abbas filed an election appeal challenging the rejection of his nomination papers for NA-127. The Returning Officer (RO) had rejected the papers, citing the unavailability of the appellant, his proposer, and seconder during scrutiny. Additionally, the RO alleged non-disclosure of a tractor and motorcycle in the appellant's declaration Form ?B.?The appellant's counsel argued that the absence during scrutiny was due to circumstances beyond their control. The individuals were now present, examined by the RO, and satisfied as to their identity. The counsel further contended that the non-disclosure of the mentioned assets was unintentional, and documents presented through C.M. No.2 of 2024 supported the appellant's claim.Legal precedents, including S. Zafar Ali Shah v. Muhammad Younas Elahi (1989 CLC 88), M/s. Eastern General Insurance Company Limited v. Azhar Ali and others (PLD 1993 SC 158), Syed Wasey Zafar and 4 others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance and others (PLD 1994 SC 621), and Mst. Shaheen Begum v. S.H.O. (ACLC) and others (2005 MLD 176), were cited to argue that the sale of goods had transferred ownership, absolving the appellant of deliberate concealment. The counsel emphasized that any finding of false declaration should require evidence of deliberate, intentional, and mala fide concealment, which was lacking in this case.Referring to Syed Fida Hussain Shah v. Election Appellate Tribunal and others (PLD 2018 Lahore 788), Shamona Badshah Qaisarani v. Election Tribunal, Multan and others (2021 SCMR 988), and Yasir Aftab v. Irfan Gul and others (2023 SCMR 206), the appellant's counsel asserted that there was no gain for the appellant in non-disclosure, and the belief that the assets no longer belonged to him was bona fide.The court, after scrutinizing the impugned order, found it lacking rationality and proportionality. The rejection of the nomination papers was set aside, and the RO was directed to include the appellant's name in the revised list of validly nominated candidates for NA-127.

Summary: Although delay of each and every day in filing appeal had to be explained in the matters relating to adversarial proceedings but in the cases of guardianship or custody of minor, such technicalities could not be strictly adhered to because in such like matters the court exercised parental jurisdiction as if it was loco parentis to the minor whose welfare was the paramount consideration. Where aspect of welfare of minor was not considered while dismissing appeal as barred by time, said order was set-aside and case was remanded for decision afresh, while considering said aspect on its own merits. Reliance was placed on PLD 1967 SC 402 & PLD 1967 LHR 977 & 2011 MLD 1983.

Summary: The Returning Officer (RO) had rejected the papers based on outstanding amounts of Rs.6,688,750/- to FBR and Rs.476,448/- as arrears of token tax for vehicles in the record of the Excise and Taxation Department.During the appeal, the appellant's counsel, Mr. Arshad Jahangir Jhoja, argued that the Excise and Taxation arrears had been paid, supported by corresponding receipts. Regarding the FBR dues, reliance was placed on the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-III)'s order dated 12.4.2019, contending that the entire liability was part of an appeal set aside.Upon the Election Commission's input, notice was issued to the respective heads of FBR and Excise & Taxation Department. The Excise Department confirmed the discharge of arrears, while FBR claimed an outstanding liability of Rs.466,250/- based on an order dated 23.8.2023.The appellant's counsel expressed surprise at the FBR order and stated that the stay application filed in response to it was pending. However, the appellant offered to deposit the amount under protest, emphasizing his compliance with the law.In response to the appellant's commitment, the RO and FBR Legal Advisor affirmed the payment, and the FBR representative clarified that the liability remained subject to final adjudication.As both instances of default were addressed, the court set aside the RO's order, accepted the appeal, and directed the inclusion of the appellant's name in the revised list of validly nominated candidates for PP-138, Sheikhupura-III, in accordance with the Elections Act, 2017.

Summary: After multiple hearings, the court found that four parliamentarians, namely Ch. Zahid Iqbal, Ms. Farah Naz Isfahani, Mr. Farhat Mehmood Khan, and Mr. Jamil Ahmad Malik, were holders of dual citizenship. Consequently, the court suspended their memberships, directing the Election Commission to de-notify their memberships and ordered the parliamentarians to refund all monetary benefits received during their tenure.The court emphasized the importance of accurate declarations on oath by candidates, stating that candidates found to have made false declarations are liable to be disqualified and face criminal proceedings. The decision established a precedent for the strict interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding dual citizenship and the consequences for elected officials found in violation.Furthermore, the court highlighted the case of Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani, stating that if a candidate suffers from pre or post disqualification under Article 63(1)(c), they become disqualified from being elected or chosen as a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). The court directed the Election Commission to examine the cases of other parliamentarians and members of Provincial Assemblies individually, obtaining fresh declarations on oath to determine their disqualification status.The judgment serves as a comprehensive precedent for the strict interpretation of constitutional provisions related to dual citizenship, the importance of truthful declarations during the nomination process, and the legal repercussions for false statements made by elected officials.