MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIALKOT And Other
This matter concerns two election appeals arising from a dispute over the validity of ballot papers where election staff recorded identity card numbers on the back of the ballots. The lower courts held that this practice violated the principle of secrecy of the ballot and contravened Rule 29 of the Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 1979, thereby vitiating the entire election. The appellants challenged this, relying on Rule 40(4)(b) of the same Rules, arguing that ballot papers are only invalid if the voter themselves marks or writes something that identifies them, not if election officials do so. The Supreme Court noted that both parties relied on the precedent of Niaz Ahmad v. Azizuddin (PLD 1967 SC 466), which required interpretation and potential modification or amplification. Given that the precedent was established by a five-judge bench, the Court determined that these appeals necessitated consideration by a larger bench of at least five judges to resolve the conflict regarding the interpretation of the election rules and the effect of official markings on ballot secrecy.
- Does the recording of identity card numbers on the back of ballot papers by election staff violate the principle of secrecy of the ballot?
- Under Rule 40(4)(b) of the Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 1979, are ballot papers invalidated only by markings made by the voter, or also by markings made by election officials?
- Rule 29, Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 1979
- Rule 40(4)(b), Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 1979
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--In these two election matters the election staff had entered the identity card number on the back of the ballot---papers and the question arose whether the entire elections had become void on account of the violation of the principle of secrecy of ballot.
2. The Courts below found that in the above circumstances the secrecy of the poll was violated and rule 29 of the Punjab Local Council Election Rules, 1979 contravened. Hence, the results of the election were materially effected and the entire election stood vitiated.
3. However, the learned counsel in support of these appeals referred to rule 40(4)(b) of the Election Rules, which reads:-- 1140(4)(b):-- 40(4).--The Presiding Officer shall open the ballot-box of each contesting candidates in the alphabetical order of their names and count the ballot-papers contained in the ballot-boxes so opened, excluding the invalid ballot-papers, that is to say, the ballot-papers--
(a) .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(b) on which anything is. Marked or written by the voter by which he card be identified", and argued that according to the above provisions only such ballot-papers can be declared invalid on which anything is marked or written by the voter sufficiently to identify him and not anything marked or written by anyone else: such as by the polling officer over whom the candidates have no control. In this connection, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Full Court in the case of Niaz Ahmad v. Azizuddin and others PLD 1967 SC 466.
4. However, both sides rely on the portions of the same judgment in their favour. It seems to us that the rule stated therein not only requires to be interpreted and applied in the circumstances of this case but may also require modificat,3n or further amplification.
5. Since the judgment in question has been delivered by s Bench of 5 Judges it appears appropriate that these matters should be heard by ,a larger Bench consisting of at least five Judges.
6. The appeals may, therefore, be placed before his Lordship the Chief justice for necessary orders.
We may add that the counsel have prayed that as these are election matters they may be heard on a very early date on the re-opening of the Court after vacations, even at Rawalpindi. This prayer may also be considered by H.C.J.