Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Filing of an FIR, false or otherwise, neither constitutes ???publication??? nor in itself meets any of the ingredients of defamation. The Appellant has, at best, framed a suit for alleged malicious prosecution in his plaint, but such an action cannot be maintained under the special law, i.e., the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. Appeal dismissed.

Summary: Background: The appellant's nomination papers for contesting the Punjab Provincial Assembly elections from PP-24 Jhelum-I were rejected by the Returning Officer on 30.12.2023 due to his possession of a United Kingdom passport, indicating dual nationality. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant, holding dual nationality, is disqualified from contesting elections under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan. 2- Whether the appellant's initiation of the process to renounce his UK nationality affects his eligibility to contest the elections. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Article 63(1)(c) Interpretation: The court reiterated that under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, a person is disqualified from being elected or chosen as a member of parliament if they cease to be a citizen of Pakistan or acquire the citizenship of a foreign state. The word "or" used in the Article is disjunctive, meaning either condition can result in disqualification. This interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court of Pakistan's decision in Suo Motu case No. 8 of 2018 (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 201). ---Renunciation Process: The appellant argued that he had initiated the process to renounce his UK nationality on 26.09.2023 and thus should not be disqualified. However, the court noted that the appellant remains a dual national until the renunciation process is finalized. The printout of the email indicating the initiation of the renunciation process did not suffice to prove that he had ceased to be a foreign national. ---Role of the Returning Officer: The court emphasized the critical role of the Returning Officer in ensuring that only eligible candidates contest the elections. The Returning Officer must scrutinize the nomination papers to confirm that candidates meet the qualifications and are not disqualified under any constitutional or legal provisions. The Election Appeal No. 150 of 2024 was dismissed in limine due to lack of merit. The court upheld the Returning Officer's decision to reject the appellant's nomination papers based on his dual nationality, which disqualified him under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution. ----Citations/Precedents: Suo Motu case No. 8 of 2018 (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 201) Sayed Anwar Hasanat v. Returning Officer PP-27, Jhelum (IV) (2013 CLC 1821) Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmad Khan v. Chief Election Commissioner Islamabad and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 817)

Summary: Both appeals were filed by Raja Safeer Akbar against the rejection of his nomination papers for NA-60 Jhelum-I and PP-24 Jhelum-I constituencies by the respective Returning Officers. The rejection was based on the grounds that Akbar did not personally sign his nomination papers or the sworn affidavit, and he did not appear before the Returning Officer for verification.The appellant argued that the rejection violated Section 62 of the Election Act, 2017, as he had provided all necessary details through his authorized nominees. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the Assistant Attorney General contended that the rejection was in line with the Election Act, 2017.The judge, Ch. Abdul Aziz, considered the facts and legal provisions. He emphasized that Section 60(2) of the Election Act explicitly mandates that nomination papers and declarations must be signed by the candidate. Referring to legal precedent, including the Supreme Court's interpretation of the word "shall" as mandatory, the judge concluded that the rejection was justified under Section 62(9)(c) of the Election Act.The appellant's argument that an authorized person could sign the nomination papers under Section 60(3) was dismissed, as this provision only pertained to the submission of papers, not the signing. The judge highlighted the principle that when the law prescribes a specific manner for a task, it must be adhered to.In light of these considerations, the judge dismissed both election appeals, affirming the rejection of Raja Safeer Akbar's nomination papers for NA-60 Jhelum-I and PP-24 Jhelum-I constituencies.Citation of Legal Precedent:The judgment cites the legal precedent "Province of Punjab through Secretary Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore and others vs. Murree Brewery Company Limited (MBCL) and another" (2021 SCMR 305) to interpret the mandatory nature of the word "shall." Additionally, the judgment refers to "Muhammad Akram vs. Mst. Zainab Bibi" (2007 SCMR 1086) to emphasize that tasks prescribed by law must be performed in the specified manner.

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: The rejection was based on two grounds: the registration of FIR No. 322 of 2023 against the appellant and his alleged default in Land-Based Agriculture Tax. --- The judgment highlighted that no proceedings under section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against the appellant. The court deemed the rejection based on the alleged absconsion of the appellant as incorrect, citing a Supreme Court precedent, specifically the case titled ?Muhammad Afzal Khan Dhandla and 03 Others Versus Election Tribunal and Others? (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 959).Additionally, the judgment emphasized that the cases cited by the respondents were distinguishable, as no proceedings under section 87 and 88 of the Code had been taken against the appellant.The court also scrutinized the second ground for rejection related to the default in agriculture tax payment. It noted discrepancies in the assessment and lack of proper notice to the appellant. Relying on relevant case laws, such as ?Abdul Sattar Bachani Versus Returning Officer and 04 Others? (2019 MLD 541) and ?Syed Shafqat Hussain Shah Versus Returning Officer and another? (2019 YLR 643), the court concluded that the rejection was based on an erroneous assumption of facts and incorrect exposition of law.As a result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and accepted the nomination papers of the appellant for NA-174(VI), Rahim Yar Khan, PP-265(XI), and PP-266(XII), Rahim Yar Khan.