MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of an Election Tribunal which declared the election of the petitioner, Muhammad Latif, void. The petitioner had been declared successful in a union council election in District Sialkot, which was subsequently challenged by the respondent, Abdur Rehman, on the grounds of an illegal voter list. Although the Election Tribunal found that the respondent failed to prove the allegations regarding the voter list, it proceeded to declare the election void suo motu. This action was based on the Tribunal's finding that the polling staff had recorded Identity Card Numbers on the ballots, thereby violating the secrecy of the ballot as mandated by the Election Rules, 1979. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether an Election Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to declare an election void based on grounds not raised or pleaded in the election petition. Finding this to be a significant question of law requiring authoritative determination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the Tribunal's suo motu powers in election disputes.
- Does an Election Tribunal have the jurisdiction to declare an election void based on grounds not raised in the election petition?
- Can an Election Tribunal exercise suo motu powers to invalidate an election based on violations of the secrecy of the ballot not pleaded by the parties?
- Rule 29, Election Rules 1979
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The facts giving rise to this petition are, briefly, that Muhammad Latif and Abdur Rahman contested the election for seat of a union council in District Sialkot. Muhammad Latif secured 220 votes as against 102 votes obtained by Abdur Rehman and was declared successful. Abdur Rehman challenged his election before the Election Tribunal, Sialkot, alleging that the list of voters which was made the basis of election was illegal. Issues were framed and evidence was led. The Election Tribunal, however, held that the aforementioned allegation could not be proved. But instead of dismissing the election petition the learned Election Tribunal, suo motu, took into consideration the fact that the polling staff had entered the Identity Card Numbers of each and every voter on their ballots, thus, infringing; the provisions of rule 29 of the Election Rules, 1979, relating to secrecy of ballots.' The Election Tribunal, therefore, declared the election of Muhammad Latif void.
2. The contention raised by the petitioner's counsel before us is that the learned Election Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to consider suo motu any ground not taken in the petition before it.
3. After hearing the petitioner's counsel and going through the impugned order as well as the relevant rules we feel that this question of law needs consideration.
Leave is, therefore, granted for this purpose. Security in the sum of Rs.1,000.
4. To be argued on the same record with permission to file additional documents.