HUMAYUN IFTIKHAR CHISHTI vs PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTION AUTHORITY
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court aggrieved by the omission of his name from the formal electoral list, despite having been registered as a fresh voter by the Registering Officer prior to the announcement of the election schedule. The core legal question concerned whether a voter should be deprived of their right to be listed and to contest elections due to administrative delays in transmitting the registration. The Additional Advocate-General conceded that the name should have been included but raised an objection regarding the availability of an alternate remedy of revision before the Commissioner under the Electoral Rolls Act 1974. The Court held that given the urgency—where only hours remained for filing nomination papers—the rule of alternative remedy being a rule of convenience could be ignored. The Court allowed the petition, declaring the omission of the petitioner's name to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and directed that his name be included immediately in the voters' list.
- Can a citizen be deprived of their right to be listed in the electoral roll due to administrative delays in transmitting their pre-schedule registration?
- Does the bar under section 20 of the Electoral Rolls Act 1974 prevent the inclusion of a voter whose registration was completed before the announcement of the election schedule?
- Is the rule of alternative remedy considered a rule of convenience that can be bypassed when extreme urgency leaves virtually no time to pursue other forums?
- Section 20, Electoral Rolls Act 1974
- Section 27, Electoral Rolls Act 1974
The grievance of the petitioner is that he moved an application for registering him as a fresh voter on 5-3-1998 and that he was registered by the Registering Officer/Assistant Election Commissioner respondent No.4 before the announcement of the schedule in the electoral list but his name has not been formally listed by the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.2 because according to the stance taken by her the said registration reached her office after announcement of the schedule the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liability of respondent No.4 cannot be made an excuse to deprive the petitioner of his right of being properly listed in the electoral list as it amounts to deprive him the benefit of right to contest the election. When confronted with this situation the- learned Additional Advocate-General has conceded that the name of the petitioner should have been mentioned in the electoral roll as it was already registered before the announcement of the schedule date, but taken the stand that in view of sections 20 and 27 of the Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974) the power of revision is with the Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that virtually no time is left to avail the revisional/alternate remedy as only few hours are left in filing the nomination papers.
2. Sections 20 and 27 of the Electoral Rolls Act (XXI of 1974) are reproduced as under:--- "20. No correction to be made after consistency called upon to elect.---No revision or correction of any electoral roll for an electoral area shall be made nor shall any order under section 19 be made in respect of any electoral roll at any time after the constituency of which such electoral area forms part has been called upon to elect its representative and before such representative has been elected.
27. Commissioner's tower to include a name in an electoral roll.---Subject to section 20 the Commissioner may, at any time, order---
(a) the inclusion in an electoral roll of the name of any person entitled to be enrolled on such electoral roll, and such name shall, from the date of such order, form part of the electoral roll;
(b) the exclusion from an electoral roll of the name of any person who has died or has become disqualified to be a voter, and such name shall from the date of such order, stand excluded from that roll; and
(c) the removal of the name of any person from an electoral roll where such removal becomes necessary due to the repetition of the name in the same electoral roll or in the electoral rolls of more than one electoral area."
3. Since the schedule of election has been announced and date for filing nomination papers has been fixed as 17-4-1998 and no time is left, even otherwise, the rule of alternative remedy is a rule of convenience and its violation in such-like cases can conveniently be ignored, I, therefore, have come to the irresistable conclusion that sending the petition to the Commissioner at this stage will be highly improper, as such, the writ petition is allowed and the A impugned action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner in the voters' list of Chak No.375-E.B., Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Petitioner's name shall be included immediately in the voters' list. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
4. Copy Dasti on usual charges
Cited by 6 cases
- Muhammad Irshad vs Election Commission of Pakistan etc 2015-PHC
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs GOVERNMENT OF HHYBER PAKIITUNKHWA through Local Government and others 2016 PLD Peshawar 170
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs UNITED BANK LIMITED through President and 3 2009 CLD 1250
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs UNITED BANK LIMITED through President and 3 2010 PLJ Lahore 182
- HASHMAT ALI vs DISTRICT ELECTION COMMISSIONER, DISTT. SWABI and 3 2015 PLJ Peshawar 328
- MUHAMMAD IRSHAD, CANDIDATE FOR MEMBER, DISTRICT COUNCIL vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, etc 2015 PLJ Peshawar 357