ABDUL AZIZ Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that declared void an Election Tribunal's order setting aside an election. The election for Electoral Unit No. 1615 was contested by the petitioner and the second respondent, with the latter declared the winner. The Election Tribunal had set aside the election based on two irregularities: the recovery of 12 excess ballot papers from female ballot boxes and the Presiding Officer's refusal to allow the petitioner's polling agent to act, permitting the petitioner's son to sign the result sheet instead. The core legal question was whether these irregularities were sufficient to set aside the election under the governing rules. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that under the Electoral College Rules, 1964, an election can only be set aside if the result was materially affected. The Court held that the irregularities cited did not materially affect the outcome, as the respondent maintained a sufficient majority even after excluding the excess votes, and no prejudice was proven regarding the polling agent's absence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can an election be set aside based on irregularities if those irregularities did not materially affect the result of the election?
- Does the presence of excess ballot papers in a ballot box automatically invalidate an election result?
- Is the unauthorized signing of a result sheet by a candidate's relative sufficient grounds to set aside an election?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Rule 36(1)(1-A), Electoral College Rules 1964
- Section 60, Electoral College Act 1964
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J. ‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan declaring void under Article 98 of the. Constitution an order of an Election Tribunal setting aside the election of the second respondent herein. The election was to the electoral college from Electoral Unit No. 1615 of Lyallpur City. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 contested this election. The petitioner polled 147 votes against 182 votes polled by the said respondent who was declared elected. The petitioner challenged the election by an election petition on various grounds but the petition was accepted on two grounds, (i) that although 132 ballot papers were issued for female voters, 144 ballot papers were actually recovered from the boxes on the female side. Thus 12 ballot papers were in excess of those issued. These must have been put in through irregular means, (ii) that the Presiding Officer had illegally prohibited the polling agent of the petitioner to act as such and instead permitted the son of the present petitioner to Sign the result sheet.
2. The High Court took the view that under rule 36 (1) (1‑A) of the Electoral College Rules, 1964, the election could only be set aside if the result of the election had been materially affected. The grounds relied upon by the Tribunal in the present case were, by no means, sufficient to lead to this inference, for, even if the 12 irregularly inserted ballot papers were excluded the respon dent No. 2 would still have a majority of 23 votes. The signing of lying the result sheet by the son of the petitioner was also not such an irregularity as could be said to have materially affected the result of the election, in the absence of any proof to show that the non -presence of .the polling agent had deprived the petitioner of any votes which would otherwise have been cast in his favour.
3. The petitioner now seeks to contend that the High Court was wrong in holding that the Tribunal had acted without lawful authority. But having examined the provisions of section 60 of the Electoral College Act and rule 36 (1) (1‑A) we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the High Court rightly held that the Tribunal had acted without lawful authority in setting aside the election on the two grounds mentioned above. We see no reason, therefore, to grant special leave in this matter. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
4. Leave refused.