Summary: Pending

Summary: Suit against show-cause notice dismissed.

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.