Dr. MUHAMMAD TAHIR-UL-QADAR vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M_O taw,. Islamabad and others
This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, seeking relief regarding the electoral process. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner had established a violation of Fundamental Rights to invoke the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, and whether the petitioner possessed the requisite locus standi to seek the prayed relief given his dual citizenship status. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of Fundamental Rights under Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi because his dual citizenship disqualified him from contesting parliamentary elections under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution. While the Court affirmed the petitioner's right to vote as an overseas Pakistani, it noted that his conduct during arguments, which included making aspersions against the Bench, constituted prima facie contempt of court. However, the Court exercised restraint and declined to initiate contempt proceedings, emphasizing that such jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly.
- Does a dual citizen possess the locus standi to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to challenge electoral processes?
- Does the disqualification of a dual citizen from contesting parliamentary elections under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution preclude them from exercising their right to vote?
- Is the Supreme Court required to initiate contempt proceedings when a litigant makes aspersions against a member of the Bench?
- Article 184(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
- Article 63(1)(c), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
- Article 204(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
- Section 3, Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---For reasons to be recorded later it is held that petitioner, Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ulQadri has failed to make out a case for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction by this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Rdpublic of Pakistan, for the facts that violation of any of the Fundamental Rights under Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution has neither been listed in the petition nor established during course of arguments, despite of insistence by the Bench to do so. The petitioner has also failed to prove his bona fides in view of the facts, which have been noticed at the hearing of the case, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court coupled with the fact that under the peculiar circumstances he has no locus standi to claim relief as ,it has been prayed for in the petition, inter alia, for the reasons that being a holder of dual citizenship, he is not qualified (disqualified) to contest the election to the Parliament in view of the constitutional bar under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, which has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 1089).
2. However, it is loudly and clearly observed that as a voter like other overseas Pakistanis, whose names have been incorporated in the Electoral Rolls, he can exercise his right of vote. As this right is recognized under the Constitution and has also been held by this Court in the case of Yasmin Khan v. Election Commission of Pakistan (1994 SCM R 113), which was finally disposed of vide judgment in Constitution Petition 26 of 1993 dated 18-12-1993. Thus, the petition is dismissed.
3. Before parting with the short order, it is essential to note that at the time of concluding his arguments on the points noted hereinabove, he started making uncalled for aspersions against the member of the Bench, which are tantamount prima facie to undermine its authority calling for action against him for Contempt of Court under Article 204(3) of the Constitution read with section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. However we, while exercising restraint, have decided not to proceed against him following the principle that such jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly on case to case basis.
Cited by 1 case
- Saeeda Sultan vs Liaqat Ali Orakzai and others 2021 PLD Supreme Court 671, 2021 P SC (Crl.) 490, 2021 SCP 88