Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973:—Art. 199—Election disputes—Scope of judicial review—Constitutional petition filed against decision of Election Appellate Tribunal accepting nomination papers of a candidate previously rejected by Returning Officer on allegations of concealment of assets. Held, scope of judicial review under Article 199 in election matters is limited to cases involving jurisdictional defects, mala fides, or lack of lawful authority—High Court cannot reappraise factual determinations of the Tribunal where another plausible view is also possible.[PLD 2008 SC 735 and PLD 2018 SC 189 cited](b) Election Act, 2017:—Ss. 60(2)(d), 62(5), 62(9)(b), 62(9)(d)(ii)—Nomination papers—Scrutiny—Disclosure of assets—Defects of non-substantial nature—Candidate's nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer for allegedly concealing properties owned by himself and his dependents. The Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision. Held, Form-B requires disclosure of assets as of 30th June preceding the election—Failure to mention location of properties, though disclosed in value, was a non-substantial defect curable under S. 62(9)(d)(ii)—Tribunal rightly concluded that omission did not amount to willful concealment—Returning Officer was empowered under S. 62(5) to seek verification from relevant authorities before rejecting nomination but failed to do so.[2022 CLC 2045 relied on](c) Interpretation of Statutes:—Mandatory compliance—Electoral procedure—Held, when a statute prescribes a specific mode for performing an act, it must be adhered to strictly—Returning Officer’s failure to comply with statutory obligations prior to rejecting the nomination renders decision unlawful.[PLD 2018 SC 189 followed](d) Election law—Omissions and defects—Material vs immaterial defects—Held, omission of details such as property location—when value and ownership are disclosed—constitutes a non-substantial defect and cannot form the basis for rejection of nomination under election law. The Tribunal’s interpretation that such defects are curable is legally sound.----Disposition:Writ Petition dismissed. Impugned judgment of Tribunal upheld.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ---Art. 199; Civil Servants Act, 1973; General Clauses Act, 1897, S. 24-A Maintainability of writ petition—Transfer and posting under a specific policy—Legitimate expectation of adherence to policy. The Islamabad High Court considered the maintainability of a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Trade and Investment Officer to a station not aligned with his merit and preference under the policy guidelines for Pakistan’s Trade Missions Abroad, 2023. The respondents contended that the matter pertained to terms and conditions of service, barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that where appointments are governed by a specific policy and do not strictly relate to terms and conditions of service, the bar under Article 212 is inapplicable. Deviation from the prescribed policy without cogent reasons violates the principles of legitimate expectation and is subject to judicial review under Article 199. (b) Policy Guidelines for Trade and Investment Officers: ---Clauses 1(j) & 1(k)—Preference and allocation of stations—Adherence to merit and legitimate expectation. Under the policy, candidates were entitled to provide their preferences for station allocation, which was to be honored based on merit. The petitioner, who ranked higher in merit, was allocated a station that was not his second preference, while a lower-ranked candidate was allocated the petitioner’s preferred station. The Court emphasized that while the policy does not create a vested right for candidates to be assigned a particular station, a candidate meeting the merit criteria and whose preference is available has a legitimate expectation to be granted that option. Deviation from the policy without justification is arbitrary and violates Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, which mandates recording reasons for administrative decisions. (c) Legitimate Expectation: ---Doctrine of legitimate expectation—Judicial review of administrative actions. The Court reaffirmed that legitimate expectation arises from an express promise, assurance, or established practice in administrative policies. The petitioner’s expectation to be allocated his second preference based on merit was reasonable and justified under the policy. Deviation without documented reasons breached the principle of fairness and provided the petitioner locus standi to challenge the decision. ----Cited Cases: Uzma Manzoor v. Vice-Chancellor Khushal Khan Khattak University (2022 SCMR 694) President, National Bank of Pakistan v. Waqas Ahmed Khan (2023 SCMR 766) Muhammad Adil Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (W.P. No. 3055 of 2019) (d) Disposition: Petition allowed—Directive for strict adherence to policy. The Court found the Board’s recommendations to allocate the petitioner to Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) in violation of the policy. It directed the respondents to reassign the petitioner’s posting strictly in accordance with the merit-based preference system outlined in the policy.

Summary: The primary issue was that his seconder was not a registered voter in his constituency, a crucial requirement under Section 60 of the Election Act 2017. Saeed Ullah sought several reliefs in his petition, including setting aside the impugned order, accepting his nomination papers, declaring him a qualified candidate for the 2024 General Elections in PK-56 Mardan, and providing an opportunity to replace the name of the seconder in his nomination papers in the interest of justice.During the proceedings, the court considered significant legal precedents. First, the case of "Mudassar Qayyum Nahra Vs. Election Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore and others" (2003 MLD 1089 Lahore) was cited, which underscored that an unqualified proposer or seconder for nomination papers could lead to their rejection, and such a defect could only be rectified by substituting the nomination papers. Second, "Nadeem Shafi Vs. Tariq Shuiq Butt and others" (PLD 2016 SC 944) reaffirmed the importance of having proposers and seconders who are registered voters in the relevant constituency. This case emphasized that such a defect in nomination papers is of substantial nature and cannot be rectified at a later stage. Lastly, "Rana Muhammad Tariq Vs. Rana Shaukat Mahmood" (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 277) stressed that the duty imposed on qualified electors to propose or second a candidate is mandatory and not directory, emphasizing the significance of adhering to this requirement as stated in section 12(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976. In conclusion, the Peshawar High Court upheld the rejection of Saeed Ullah's nomination papers, citing these legal precedents and the mandatory nature of having qualified proposers and seconders. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition based on these considerations.

Summary: The primary legal issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of the "dual membership" clause in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013 (KPLGA, 2013), specifically Section 85, which states that elected officials in local councils must resign from their existing office before contesting any political office. This provision was found to be in line with Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution of Pakistan, which disqualifies individuals from being elected if they are disqualified under any law in force.The petitioner's argument was centered on whether Section 85 of the KPLGA, 2013, should be applicable to disqualify respondent No. 5 from contesting the General Election in 2024. Several legal precedents were cited to support this position, including the Lahore High Court's judgment in the case of Fozia Khalid vs. Election Appellate Tribunal, Lahore (PLD 2018 Lahore 895), which upheld the "resign to run" principle, preventing elected officials from contesting elections without resigning from their current office. The Supreme Court of Pakistan also upheld this principle in a subsequent order.Furthermore, the Balochistan High Court's judgment in Ghulam Akbar Lachi vs. Returning Officer for NA 270 and the Islamabad High Court's decision in Zahid Naseem vs. Election Commission of Pakistan confirmed the application of disqualification under provincial laws to the eligibility of candidates.In conclusion, the Peshawar High Court held that respondent No. 5's failure to resign as Mayor of Tehsil Gumbat District Kohat when filing his nomination papers made him subject to the "dual membership" bar as per Section 85 of the KPLGA, 2013, and Article 63(1)(p) of the Constitution. Consequently, the court upheld the rejection of respondent No. 5's nomination papers, setting aside the judgments of the Election Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar, and restoring the order of the Returning Officer dated December 29, 2023. As a result, respondent No. 5 was disqualified from contesting the General Elections in 2024 for constituencies PK-90 Kohat-I and NA-35 Kohat.

Summary: During the proceedings, the respondent and his legal team submitted that he was remorseful and willing to issue a public apology. However, they did not want to play the video clip of his speech in court. The Court expressed concerns about the content of the speech, which had been widely covered by the media and included unprovoked malicious statements against the Chief Justice of the Court, including threats to his life.The Court emphasized that the respondent's statements seemed to undermine the dignity and authority of the judiciary and were in violation of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, which prohibits acts or statements that scandalize the court or bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Additionally, the threats to the Chief Justice's life could invoke provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and result in disqualification from public office under the Election Act 2017.Recognizing the importance of magnanimity in such cases, the Court suggested that the respondent submit a written apology and express regret publicly through a press conference to demonstrate his sincerity. The respondent agreed to this proposition.Subsequently, the respondent provided a written apology on his party's letterhead, and a video clip was presented in which he publicly expressed his apology and regret for his statements.In light of the respondent's written apology and public apology through the video clip, the Court decided to consider and accept his heartfelt apology. As a result, the Court disposed of the petition.

Summary: A convicted person cannot contest elections in terms of Article 63(1)(h) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 if he is involved in a case of moral turpitude. Concealment of a fact of obtaining gifts from Tosha Khana falls within the definition of moral turpitude.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending