Ch. IJAZ AHMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF THEKEDAR and 4 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court in an election dispute concerning Local Council Elections. The Election Tribunal had set aside the entire election and ordered fresh polls after finding violations of relevant rules. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, contending that although rules were violated, no evidence demonstrated that the voting pattern was prejudiced thereby. The Supreme Court considered whether the violation of rules materially affected the election results. Upon examining the voting pattern at the relevant polling stations, the Court found that the rule violations indeed materially affected the outcomes. Consequently, the Court held that findings of fact concluding prejudice warranted the annulment of the election as a whole. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the concurrent findings of the tribunals and the High Court.
- Whether the annulment of an election as a whole requires proof that rule violations prejudiced the election result?
- Can findings of fact regarding the effect of rule violations on voting patterns justify the refusal of leave to appeal?
- Whether an Election Tribunal is justified in ordering fresh elections upon finding material violations of rules?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in this election matter; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's Constitutional Petition.
2. ' On respondent's election petition against the petitioner's declaration as successful candidate during the last Local Council Elections, the Election Tribunal set aside the election itself as a whole and directed that fresh election be held. This order of the Election Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction; but without any success, therefore, he has sought leave to appeal.
3. ' Learned counsel contended that there were two essential conditions, required for the annulment of the election as a whole: (i), that the relevant rules should have been violated; and (ii), that the result of the election has been prejudiced by the violation of the rules. He frankly stated that there was violation of rules but vehemently contended that no evidence was led to show that the said violation of the rules affected in so far as the voting or its pattern was concerned.
4. After hearing the learned counsel on the question raised which obviously stands concluded by findings of fact against the petitioner, no justification was found to grant leave to appeal. However, we ourselves also examined various aspects of the voting pattern at the three relevant polling stations including the disputed one and found that the violation of the rules materially affected the results of the elections. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.