KHUDA BAKHSH vs Mir ZAFARULLAH KHAN JAMALI
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed a writ of quo warranto filed by a voter against a Member of the National Assembly. The petitioner alleged the respondent was disqualified from contesting the election due to an outstanding bank loan. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly held that the constitutional petition was barred by Article 225 of the Constitution and whether the remedy of quo warranto was appropriately refused as a matter of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that Article 225 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, mandates that election challenges must be brought exclusively through election petitions before the designated tribunal, not via constitutional petitions. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that quo warranto is a discretionary relief. Allowing such petitions long after an election would invite instability, as any voter could challenge a member's qualification years later, leading to far-reaching and adverse consequences for parliamentary proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Does Article 225 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 bar a constitutional petition challenging an election on the grounds of disqualification?
- Is the remedy of quo warranto regarding an election result a matter of absolute right or judicial discretion?
- Can an election to a House or Provincial Assembly be challenged outside of an election petition presented to the designated tribunal?
- Article 225, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Representation of the People Act 1976
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23-5-1995 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Baluchistan in Constitution Petition No.98 of 1995, filed by the petitioner, a registered voter in the electoral unit Gazzi, Halqa Gandar, Tehsil Jhatpat, District Jaffarabad, seeking a writ of quo warranto against the respondent, who was elected as a Member of the National Assembly from Constituency NA-203 Nasirabad/Jaffarabad, on the ground that the respondent was disqualified from contesting the above election on account of outstanding bank loan against him, dismissing the same. The petitioner has; therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition Mr. Abdul Basir Qureshi, learned ASC for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the grounds found favour with the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court are not sustainable, namely, that the relevant statute provided the remedy for determination of the question raised before the High Court, right of appeal was also provided, that the Constitution petition was also hit by Article 225 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Constitution, and that, in any case, quo warranto is a discretionary relief as held in the case of Masudul Hassan v. Khadim Hussain and another (PLD 1963 SC. 203) and it was not a fit ease f6r exercising of discretion.
3. Even if we were to ignore the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, Article 225 of the Constitution is very clear and express, which provides that "No election to a House oz Provincial Assembly shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such Tribunal and in such manner as may be determined by the Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)".
The petitioner, in fact, was challenging the respondent's above election and, therefore, his Constitution petition was hit by the above provision. Secondly, quo warranto, being a discretionary relief, has been lightly refused. If such a petitions are entertained, none of the Members of the Parliament will remain saved. Any voter may come forward after expiry of several years with the plea that the elected candidate was not qualified to have contested the election. Such a practice will entail far-reaching consequences as pointed out by the High Court. The petition has no merits.
Leave is refused.
Cited by 5 cases
- IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI Versus MIAN MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF, PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN/MEMBER NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, PRIME MINISTER'S HOUSE, ISLAMABAD 2017 PLD 265
- Syed Nadir Ali Shah vs (1) Mohtamim/Raees-ul-Madrassa Madrassa 2017 PHC 63
- Syed NADIR ALI SHAH vs MOHTAMIM/RAEES UL MADRASSA, MADRASSA ARABIA 2017 PLD Peshawar 133
- WAHEED ABIR vs Rana ZAHID HUSSAIN KHAN and others 2013 PLD Lahore 586
- Hafiz HAMDULLAH vs SAIFULLAH KHAN and others 2007 PLD Supreme Court 52