MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL (LOCAL COUNCILS), PESHAWAR
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an Election Tribunal's decision in a local council election dispute. The core legal question was whether the Election Tribunal acted lawfully in declaring the petitioner the winner based on allegations that three minor voters had cast ballots for the respondent, thereby altering the election outcome. The High Court had overturned the Tribunal's decision, finding that the petitioner had failed to raise this specific plea in his pleadings and, crucially, that there was no evidence presented to support the claim that the alleged minors had voted or that they had voted for the respondent. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Tribunal's findings were based on no evidence. The Court held that where a tribunal reaches a conclusion without any evidentiary basis, the High Court is justified in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to correct the error. The principle laid down is that an election result cannot be altered based on allegations unsupported by evidence or pleadings.
- Can an Election Tribunal declare a candidate elected based on allegations not raised in the pleadings?
- Is a High Court justified in interfering with an Election Tribunal's decision when there is no evidence to support the Tribunal's findings?
- Does the lack of evidence regarding the identity and voting preference of alleged minor voters invalidate an election challenge?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in a Local Council Election matter, against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents' constitutional petition.
2. ' The petitioner obtained 195 votes while the contesting respondent No,2 had 196 votes.
3. ' On election petition a learned Tribunal set aside respondent's election and declared the petitioner as elected. According to learned counsel three voters, namely, Izharullah, Naveed and Rehman Ullah, who were minors, did cast their votes and two out of them; namely, Izharullah and Naveed voted for the said respondent. Accordingly it was found in petitioner's favour by the Election Tribunal that the respondent's votes having been reduced to 194 the petitioner had gained the majority by obtaining 195 votes.
4. ' In the impugned judgment the main consideration which weighed with the High Court was that the plea on which the Election Tribunal allowed the petitioner's election petition, was not taken in his pleadings. And further that it was a case of no evidence either to support the plea that the three minors voted or that two of them voted in favour of the respondent.
5. ' After hearing the learned counsel we are unable to differ with the High Court in all the abovenoted points. In so far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned two of the observations need particular notice. They are "Even it was not proved that the three voters, stated to be minors, did poll their votes what to say of these being polled in favour of the respondent".---- -------- "It is astonishing wherefrom the learned Tribunal gathered that the three minors cast their votes in favour of the respondent".
6. We heard the learned counsel at considerable length with regard to the aforequoted findings. In our view, in the facts and circumstances, they were so rendered because practically there was no evidence with the Election Tribunal to hold; either that the three voters in dispute did cast their votes or that any one of them voted for a particular candidate. That being so it was a case of no evidence. The High Court rightly interfered in its constitutional jurisdiction. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.