Dr. ZAHOOR MEHDI vs CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, ISLMABAD and others
This constitutional petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by Dr. Zahoor Mehdi, challenging the order of the Chief Election Commissioner dated 29-9-2007 rejecting his nomination papers for the election of the President, and further praying for a caretaker charge of the Government under the doctrine of necessity. The core legal questions involved whether the requirement of a proposer and seconder for a presidential candidate under subordinate legislation and the Second Schedule to the Constitution was mandatory, and whether the petition was maintainable under Article 184(3). The Supreme Court held that the rejection of the nomination papers was unexceptionable as the statutory and constitutional requirements of a proposer and seconder are mandatory, and further held that petitions challenging matters relating to the election of the President do not involve a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the requirement of a proposer and seconder for a presidential candidate is mandatory under the Constitution and the Presidential Election Rules, 1988?
- Is a constitutional petition challenging the rejection of nomination papers for the election of the President maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution?
- Do matters relating to the election of the President involve a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights?
- Article 41, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 62, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 184(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Rule 5(3)(b), Presidential Election Rules 1988
ORDER
' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C J.---Through the titled Constitutional Petition, petitioner Dr. Zahoor Mehdi, a candidate for election of President prays that the order of the Chief Election Commissioner dated 29-9-2007 whereby his nomination papers for election of President were rejected may be set aside and he may be held qualified to contest the Presidential election. He further prays that under the doctrine of necessity he may be given caretaker charge of the Government so that he is able to ameliorate the national economy which objective he would achieve by saving 30% of running expenditure of the country and by boosting up 90% NGDP.
2. In support of the petition, the petitioner contended that Articles 41 and 62 of the Constitution, which deal with the qualifications for the President, do not lay down the requirement of proposer and seconder for a Presidential candidate, but is the requirement of sub-rules (3)(b) of rule 5 of the Presidential Election Rules, 1988, which is a subordinate legislation, therefore, absence of proposer and seconder does not constitute violation of the Constitution. When confronted with the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution (Election of President), he took the plea that the same are not mandatory in view of the word 'may' used therein. To substantiate his plea, he submitted that the candidates for appointment to different posts in the public service offer themselves without any proposer and seconder and the same principle should apply vis-a-vis the election of President. Moreover, the petitioner is of the view that finding no suitable candidates for the election of President, he has offered himself as a candidate for that said office.
3. We have heard the petitioner at some length. The petitioner was unable to convince us as to how deviation from the constitutional as well as statutory provisions, referred to above, was permissible and how departure could be made from the law laid down in the case of M.P. Khan v. Muhammad Rafiq Tarar (1999 SCM R 90) where this Court did not dispense with the requirement of proposer and seconder. The order of the Chief Election Commissioner rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner is unexceptionable.
4. Even otherwise, the petition, ex facie, is not maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
This Court has already held in the case of Qazi Hussain Ahmed v. General Pervaiz Musharraf (Constitutional Petition No, 58 of 2007) (PLD 2008 SC 30) that the petitions challenging matters relating to the election of President do not involve question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part-II of the Constitution (Articles R to 28).
5. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.