Pakistan Case Law
2003 CLC 300

Pir MAZHARULHAQUE vs ELECTION TRIBUNALI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2003 CLC 300
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Constitutional Petition No,1673 and Miscellaneous Application No,4271 of
Date2002-09-25
Judge(s)Ghulam Rabbani, Anwar Zaheer Jamali and S. Ali Aslam Jafri
Authored byGhulam Rabbani
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by an Election Tribunal, which had rejected the petitioner's nomination papers for an election. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the petitioner, having been convicted by an Ehtesab Court on charges of corruption, remained qualified to contest elections under the prevailing legal framework. The petitioner admitted to the convictions, noting that while the Supreme Court had suspended his sentences of imprisonment, the convictions themselves remained intact. The High Court held that the petitioner was disqualified from being elected or chosen as a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or any Provincial Assembly. The Court reasoned that the statutory provisions explicitly disqualify individuals convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction on charges of corrupt practice, moral turpitude, or misuse of power. Finding no illegality or infirmity in the Tribunal's order, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming the principle that a conviction for corruption constitutes a valid ground for electoral disqualification under the Conduct of Elections Order, 2002 and the Representation of the People Act, 1976.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the suspension of a sentence of imprisonment by the Supreme Court remove the disqualification arising from a conviction for corruption?
  • Is a person convicted by an Ehtesab Court on a charge of corruption disqualified from being elected to the Majlis-e-Shoora or a Provincial Assembly?
  • What is the effect of a conviction for corrupt practice on a candidate's eligibility to contest an election?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 8D, Conduct of Elections Order, 2002
  • Section 99(1-A)(h), Representation of the People Act, 1976
electoral disqualificationnomination paperscorrupt practiceconvictionEhtesab Courtelection tribunal

ORDER

GHULAM RABBANI, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12th September, 2002 passed by learned Tribunal whereby, while allowing the appeal filed by respondent No,3, nomination form of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. We have heard arguments of learned counsel and with his assistance we have examined the papers available before us. Admitted position is that petitioner was convicted by Ehtesab Court presided over by Judge of this Court in two Ehtesab References bearing Nos.6 of 1997 and 8 of 1997.

Against the conviction and sentences appeals bearing Nos.247 of 1997 and 255 of 1998 were filed before the Honourable Supreme Court by the petitioner wherein only sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner was suspended vide orders dated 11-12-1997 and 19-11-1998.

3. The petitioner, as noted above, was convicted by Ehtesab Court on the charge of corruption which fact has been admitted' in the oral submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Thus, he is not qualified/disqualified to be elected or chosen as a member of a house of Majlis Shoora (Parliament)/any Assembly within the terms of Article 8D of Conduct of Elections Order, 2002 and section 99(1-A)(h) of Representation of the People Act, 1976 which are reproduced below:-- "8D .Qualifications and disqualifications of members of Majlis-eShoora (Parliament) and. Provincial Assemblies.--- (1)

(a) to (j) ....................................................................................................................

2) (a) to (g) ...............................................................................................................

(h) he has been convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction on a charge of corrupt practice, moral turpitude or misuse of power or authority under any law for the time being in force.

99. (1-A) A person shall be disqualified from being elected as and from being a member of any assembly, if

(a) to (g) ..................................................................................................................

(h) Has been convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction on a charge of corrupt practice, moral turpitude or misuse of power Or authority under any law for the time being in force."

4. Upshot of the above discussion is that we do not find any material defect, infirmity or any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition in liming along with the listed application.

Cited by 6 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.