IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad 
 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.1569-L, 1579-L,  
1597-L, 1600-L, 1622-L AND 1624-L of 2005. 
 
(On appeal from the judgments dated 8.8.2005, 
11.8.2005, 3.8.2005, 9.8.2005 passed by Lahore High 
Court, in W.Ps.No.14277, 144667, 2758, 2889, 14111 
and 14286 of 2005) 
 
 
CP.1569-L/2005  
Sanaullah Khan and another   vs.   District 
Returning Officer, Mianwali, etc.  
 
CP.1579-L/2005 
Qari Muhammad Liaquat Ali  and another  vs. 
District Returning Officer, Gujrat, etc.   
 
CP.1597-L/2005 
Ghulam Shabbir Bhutta and another     vs. 
District Returning Officer, Bahawalpur, etc.  
 
CP.1600-L/2005 
Sultan Mehmood and another    vs.  Returning 
Officer, UC-118, Tehsil Liaqat Pur, Rahim Yar 
Khan, etc.  
 
CP.1622-L/2005 
Saeed Ahmed Asad and another   vs.  District 
Returning Officer, Khushab etc.  
 
CP.1624-L/2005 
Muhammad Khaliq  and another  vs.  District 
Returning Officer, Gujrat etc.  
 
 
For the petitioners (CP 1569-L 05): Mr.Abdul Rauf Farooqui, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, AOR (Absent). 
 
 
 
(CP 1579-L/05): 
Mr. Farooq Amjad Meer, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehmood Ul Islam, AOR. 
 
 
 
(CP 1597-L/05) 
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, AOR. 
 
 
 
(CP 1600-L/05) 
Mr. S.M. Naseem Khashmiri, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mahmoodul Islam, AOR 
 
 
 
(CP 1622-L/05) 
Khawaja Haris Ahmad, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mahmood Ul Islam, AOR 
 
 
 
(CP 1624-L/05) 
Khawaja Saeed-uz-Zaffar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, AOR.  
 
 
 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
2
For the respondents (CP.1569-L/05): Ch. Riasat Ali, ASC. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, AOR.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(CP 1579-L/05) 
Mr. Muhammad Arif Raja, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. C.M. Latif, AOR. 
 
 
 
(CP 1597-L/05) 
Mr. Saleem ud Din Aftab, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
(For R. 4-5 in CP 1597-L/05) 
 
 
 
(CP. 1622-L/05)  
Dr. A. Basit, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, AOR (Absent). 
 
 
 
 
 
(CP.1624-L/05) 
Sh. Ziaullah, Sr. ASC.  
 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Muhammad Anwar, AOR.  
 
 
 
On Court notice  (in all cases): 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General For Pakistan 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tahir Mehmood Khokhar, Dy.AG 
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Danishwar Malik, Dy. AG 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Adl.AG 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
16.8.2005 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. — The petitioners have 
sought leave to appeal against the judgments dated 8.8.2005, 11.8.2005, 
3.8.2005 and 9.8.2005 of the Lahore High Court pronounced in writ 
petitions No.14277, 14467, 2758, 2889, 14111 and 14286 of 2005. 
2. 
Petitioners having failed to persuade the Lahore High Court that they 
are qualified to contest the election for the office of Nazim and Naib Nazim 
as they possessed “Deeni Sanads” equal to degrees of M.A. or B.A. and 
certificates of F.A. and Matric respectively but their nomination papers had 
wrongly been rejected under Section 152(1)(e) of the Punjab Local 
Government Ordinance, 2001 [herein after referred to as “the Ordinance 
2001”], therefore, they instituted instant proceedings.   
3. 
Marshaling of facts in each case in detail is not called for in view of 
commonality of question of law and facts involved therein.  
4. 
Controversy relating to acceptability of “Sanads” (Asnad) of “Deeni 
Madaris” for contesting Local Government Elections had been the subject 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
3
matter of Writ Petitions before Provincial High Courts in recent past. 
Learned High Courts could not evolve unanimity on the status of these 
“Sanads” which resulted in dissenting judgments. Lahore High Court in 
Writ Petition No.14075/2005 (Muhammad Younas v.  D.R.O.) vide 
judgment dated 3rd August 2005 concluded that in absence of equivalence 
certificate from the Inter Board Committee of Chairmen [herein after 
referred to as “IBCC”], “Sanads” issued by “Deeni Madaris” are not 
acceptable to meet the criteria of academic qualification of a candidate in 
terms of Section 152(1)(e) of the Ordinance 2001. Peshawar High Court, in 
Writ Petition No.1170/2005 (Muhammad Azam Khan  v.  Returning 
Officer) and High Court of Balochistan in Constitution Petitions 
No.359/2005, 360/2005, 372/2005, 376/2005, 395/2005, 420/2005, 
427/2005 etc. gave verdicts that “Sanad” of “Deeni Madrasah” is acceptable 
to qualify a candidate to contest elections under corresponding provisions of 
Local Government Ordinances and Elections Rules applicable respectively 
in both the provinces.  
5. 
Petitioners’ counsel unanimously stressed that:-- 
a) 
In absence of notice to candidates to obtain 
equivalence certificates of “Deeni Sanads” from 
competent authority, they cannot be held 
disqualified to contest elections under Section 
152(1)(e) of the Ordinance 2001.  
b) 
“Sanads” issued by “Deeni Madaris” without 
equivalence certificate from UGC or IBCC are 
acceptable to qualify the provisions of Section 
152(1)(e) of the Ordinance 2001.  
 
6. 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Attorney General contended that:- 
a) 
 Petitioners were conscious of the fact that 
without obtaining equivalence certificates of 
“Sanads” issued by “Deeni Madaris” they were 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
4
not qualified to contest elections, therefore, they 
have been rightly non-suited vide impugned 
judgments of the Lahore High Court.  
b) 
“Sanads” without equivalence certificate from 
UGC/HEC or IBCC are not acceptable to meet 
the requirement of law.  
 
7. 
At the outset, it is considered appropriate to reproduce herein below 
the subjects being taught to the students of “Deeni Madaris” from one of the 
approved institutions by University Grants Commission/Higher Education 
Commission [herein after referred to as “UGC”] i.e. Jamia Ashrafia 
(Asharafia Islamic University) Lahore to qualify examinations of different 
courses which are said to be equal to certificate of Matric F.A. and degrees 
of B.A. M.A:---  
PROSPECTUS OF JAMIA ASHRAFIA  
(ASHRAFIA ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY), LAHORE. 
i. 
Al-Saniviyya Amma (Secondary)-2 Years 
ii. 
Al-Saniviyya Khassa (Higher Secondary)-2 Years 
 
In addition to Al-Tajweed, Al-Hadith, Al-Tauheed, Al-
Seeratun Nabi, Al-Fiqha, Arabic Language, Al-Nahv, 
Al-Sarf, Reading & Comprehension of Arabic Text 
and English, the following subjects are also taught in 
graded manner at this stage. 
 
 
History of Islam, Islamic manners & behaviour, Logic, 
History of Arabic literature, Al-Blagha and computer 
training. 
 
iii. 
Al-‘Aliya (Graduation)-2 years. 
 
Al-Tafseer, Uloomul Quran, Al-Hadith, Mutalah-ul-
Hadith, Al-Tauheed, Al-Fiqha, Usool-ul-Fiqha, Al-
Faraiz, Islamic History, Islamic Culture, Objectives of 
Islamic 
Shareea, 
Religious 
& 
Sects, 
Arabic 
Languages, Arabic Literature, Al-Balagha & Al-nahv.  
iv. 
AL-AALIMIYYA (Master Degree)-2 Years 
This is the final two years course of the JAMIA 
leading to the Degree of Aalimiyya-reckoned 
equivalent to MA in Arabic/Islamic Studies. 
 
 
 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
5
The intense courses of study for 1st year of Aalimyya 
include the following subjects: 
1.    Al-Tafseer,  
 
 
2.  Usool-ul Tafseer 
3.   E’jaz-ur-Qur’an  
 
4.  Usool-ul-Hadith 
5.   Mutalahul-Hadith 
 
6.  Al-Fiqhul Islamee 
7.   Usool-ul-Da’wa  
 
8.  Al-Saqafatul Islamiyya 
9.    Al-Adyan Wal Turnq  
10. Al-Tarbiya wa Turuqul  Tadrees 
11.  Al-Bahas wal Manajeha 
12. Al-Uloomul Kauniyya 
13.  Hafizul-Uloomul Islamee   
14. Al-Tibbul Islamee 
 
The 2nd year Aalimiyya includes the study 
of the following subjects : 
1. 
Al-Sahihul Bokhari 
2. 
Al-Sahihul Muslim 
3. 
Jamia-ul-Tirmizi wa Shamaail 
4. 
Sunan Abi Dawood 
5. 
Sunan Ibn-e-Maja 
6. 
Sunan Nisaai 
7. 
Sharha Ma’aaniul Aasor 
8. 
Mauta Imam Malik 
9. 
Mauta Imam Muhammad. 
8. 
Petitioners have obtained following Sanads issued by various “Deeni 
Madaris”:---  
S. #
 
 
Name of petitioner  
Name of Sanad 
Name of Institution 
1. 
Sanaullah Khan  
Shahadat-ul-Sanviat-
ul-Aama (Matric) 
 
Shahadat-ul-Sanviat-
ul-Khasa (F.A.) 
 
Itehad-ul-Madaris 
Al-
Arabia, Pakistan.  
2. 
Khadim Hussain 
Shahadat-ul-Sanviat-
ul-Aama (Matric) 
 
Tanzeem-ul-Madaris 
(Ahle-Sunnat)Pakistan 
Jamiah Rizvia Sardar-
ul-Madaris, Multan 
 
3. 
Sultan Mehmood 
Sanad-Al-Fragh-Minal 
Uloom-El-Arabia Wal 
Islamia(B.A) 
Jamiah 
Anwar-ul-
Mustafa(Regd.) 
Sukkur, 
Sindh, 
Pakistan. 
 
4. 
Saeed Ahmad 
Shahadat-ul-Aalmia 
Fil Uloom Ul Arabia 
Wal Islamia (M.A) 
 
Wafaq-Ul-Madaris Al 
Arabia Pakistan 
5. 
Hakeem 
Qari 
Muhammad Liaqat 
Ali  
Shahadat-ul-Aalmia 
Fil Uloom Ul Arabia 
Wal Islamia (M.A) 
Tanzeem-ul-Madaris 
(Ahle- 
Sunnat) 
Pakistan, 
Jamiah-tul-
Ghazamia-tul-Rizvia,  
Lahore. 
 
6. 
Pervaiz Mehdi 
Shahadat-ul-Sanviat-
ul-Aama (Matric) 
Tanzeem-ul-Madaris 
Al-Islamia  Jammu & 
Kashmir  
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
6
9. 
The adversarial contentions of learned counsel for the parties call for 
to determine the legal status of the authorities, which are empowered to 
issue equivalence certificate in respect of “Sanads” of “Deeni Madaris”.  
10. 
Following are the authorities competent to issue equivalence 
certificate in Pakistan:--  
1. 
University 
Grants 
Commission 
(now 
Higher 
Education Commission) is authorized to recognize 
and approve ‘Deeni Madaris’ and to issue equivalence 
certificate in respect of Sanads of Al-Aalia 
(Graduation), Al-Aalmia (Master Degree). 
2. 
Inter Board Committee of Chairmen (IBCC) is 
authorized to grant equivalence certificate of Deeni 
Sanads Al-Sanvia-Aama (Secondary) and Al-Sanvia-
Khasa (Higher Secondary. 
11. 
The UGC is a statutory body, which has been created under the 
University Grants Commission Act, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as “the 
Act, 1974”]. Under its Section 8, it has to perform such functions which are  
not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or as may be prescribed or 
as may be incidental or consequential to the discharging of the aforesaid 
function, besides other functions enumerated therein and additional 
functions under Section 9 of the Act.  
12. 
In exercise of such powers, the UGC had approved from time to time 
“Deeni Madaris” functioning under the nomenclature of Wafaq/Tanzeem-
ul-Madaris and individual institutions indicating the purpose as well for 
which “Sanads” can be issued. Names of the institutions are as under:--- 
 
 
Name of Wafaq/Tanzeem/Institution 
1. Wafaq-ul-Madaris, Markazi Office Gordon, Town 
Sher Shah Road, Multan. 
 
2. Tanzeem-ul-Madaris Ahle Sunnat, Jamia Naeemia 
Rizvia, Garhi Shaho, Lahore. 
 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
7
3. Wafaq-ul-Madaris, Al-Salfia Hajiabad Post Code-
38600, Faisalabad. 
 
4. Wafaq-ul-Madaris 
Shia, 
Jamia-al-Muntazar, 
H.Block Model Town, Lahore. 
 
5. Rabita-ul-Maddaris-Al-Islamia, 
Manzoor 
Road, 
Lahore. 
 
6. Jamia Islamia Minhaj-ul-Quran, 368 Model Town, 
Lahore. 
 
7. Jamia 
Taleemat-e-Islamia, 
Sargodha 
Road, 
Faisalabad. 
 
8. Jamia Ashrafia, Ferozepur Road, Lahore. 
 
9. Darul Uloom Mohammadia Ghousia Bhera, District 
Sargodha. 
 
10. Darul Uloom, Korangi, Karachi. 
 
[the above list finds mentioned in the case of Maulana Abdullah   v.   
Returning Officer and others  (2003 SCMR 195)].   
 
 
13. 
In our country educational institutions, both in the Government and 
private sectors, suffer from lack of uniform education policy, therefore, for 
the building of national cohesion by promoting social and cultural harmony 
and designing curricula relevant to nation’s changing social and economic 
needs, compatible with the basic national ideology and thereby providing 
massive shift from general education to more purposeful agro-technical 
education; to make provision for Federal supervision of curricula, preparing 
text-books for various classes and for maintenance of standards of 
education; Federal Supervision of Curricula, Text Books and Maintenance 
of Standards of Education Act, 1976 [herein after referred to as “the Act of 
1976”] was promulgated.  In exercise of powers under this Act, the Federal 
Government empowered the UGC to laid down criteria for acceptance of 
“Sanads” of “Deeni Madaris”. Thus UGC vide notification No.8-
418/Acad/82/128 dated November 17, 1982 declared that the “Sanad” of 
Shahadat-ul-Almiyya-Fil-Uloomil-Arabia-Wal-Islamia granted by a “Deeni 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
8
Madrasah,” whose name finds mention therein shall be considered 
equivalent to M.A. in Arabic/Islamic Studies for the purpose of teaching 
Arabic/Islamic Studies in the colleges and universities and for pursuing 
higher studies in Arabic and Islamic Studies. However, for employment 
other than teaching, “Sanad” holders were required to qualify in two 
additional subjects other than Arabic and Islamic Studies at B.A. level of a 
university. They have also to qualify in the newly introduced subjects of 
Elective Pakistan Studies and Islamic Studies at the B.A. level. The UGC 
had been issuing notifications subsequent thereto as well, on  
7th June 1982 (No.8-418/Acad/84/ 1316); on 12th August 1987  
(No.8-418/Acad/86/2560), and a notification of even date bearing No.8-
418/Acad/86/2573.  By means of these notifications the criteria laid down 
in notification dated 17th November 1982 by the UGC for making “Sanads” 
of “Deeni Madaris” acceptable for employment purposes other than the 
teaching had been reiterated alongwith the names of “Deeni Madaris” 
recognized by it. Thus, it is a fact that from 1982 onwards the UGC by 
means of various notifications referred to herein-above had been dealing 
with the cases of a large number of students who received education in 
“Deeni Madaris” and were granted equivalence certificate subject to passing 
examination of the additional subjects at the B.A. level. Identical question 
came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Maulana 
Abdullah (ibid), wherein latest notification issued by the UGC dated 25th 
July 2002 was reproduced. It is significant to note that in this notification 
the UGC had made it clear that the “Sanad” Shahadat-ul-Almiyya-Fil-
Uloomil-Arabia-Wal-Islamia (Master Degree) granted by approved 
Wafaq/Tanzeem-ul-Madaris and individual institutions is recognized as 
M.A. Arabic/Islamic studies for teaching purpose only.  The word ‘only’ 
means “for no other purpose” (Black’s law Dictionary 5th Edition) and in 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
9
Government of Punjab    v.   Naila Begum (PLD 1987 Lahore 336) it was 
held that “the word ‘only’ found in this article cannot be ignored and plays 
a significant role in the interpretation of the article. According to Oxford 
Dictionary, word ‘only’ means, solely, merely, exclusively, or by itself 
alone without anything else.”  
14. 
The Act of 1974 now has been repealed by the Higher Education 
Commission Ordinance, 2002 [herein after referred to as “the Ordinance 
2002”]. Its Section 22 Sub-section (2) has provided safeguards to 
everything done or action taken under the repealed Act of 1974 . As a result 
thereof, all the notifications referred to herein before have been saved. 
Besides, Section 10(o) of the Ordinance 2002 confers functions upon the 
Commission to determine the equivalence and recognition of the degrees, 
diplomas and certificates, awarded by Institutions within the country and 
abroad.   
Thus, it is manifest that subject to passing examination of two 
additional subjects and newly introduced subjects of Elective Pakistan 
Studies and Islamic Studies at the B.A. level, “Sanad” of Shahadat-ul-
Aalmia obtained by the students from Wafaq/Tanzeem-ul-Madaris and 
individual institutions, duly recognized by the UGC, could be used for 
employment purposes other than teaching and without passing examination 
at B.A. level from a university in four subjects noted above, these “Sanads” 
if issued by recognized institution by UGC/HEC, could be used for teaching 
purposes and for Higher Education only.  
15. 
It may also be noted that the prospectus of one of the recognized 
“Deeni Madaris” i.e. Jamia Ashrafia (Ashrafia Islamic University), Lahore 
indicates that the “Sanads” of Shahadat-ul-Aalia and Shahadat-ul-Aalmia 
have been shown to be equal to degrees of Graduation and Master whereas 
a degree can only be granted by a University established by the Government 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
10
itself, thus, any degree granted by a private University, which is not 
recognized by the Government, is not acceptable. Reference in this behalf 
may be made to Azeezbasha    v.   Union of India (AIR 1968 SC 662). 
Relevant para therefrom reads as under thus:--- 
“21. 
Before we do so we should like to say that the 
words “educational institutions” are of very wide import 
and would include a university also. This was not 
disputed on behalf of the Union of India and therefore it 
may be accepted that a religious minority had the right to 
establish a university under Article 30(1). The position 
with respect to the establishment of Universities before 
the constitution came into force in 1950 was this. There 
was no law in India which prohibited any private 
individual or body from establishing a university and it 
was therefore open to a private individual or body to 
establish a university. There is a good deal in common 
between 
educational 
institutions 
which 
are 
not 
universities and those which are universities. Both teach 
students and both have teachers for the purpose. But 
what distinguishes a university from any other 
educational institution is that a university grants degrees 
of its own while other educational institutions cannot. It 
is this granting of degrees by a university which 
distinguishes it from the ordinary run of educational 
institutions. See St. David’s College, Lampeter   v 
Ministry of Education, 1951-1 All ER 559. Thus in law 
in India there was no prohibition against establishment 
of universities by private individuals or bodies and if any 
university was so established it must of necessity be 
granting degrees before it could be called a university. 
But though such a university might be granting degrees 
it did not follow that the government of the country was 
bound to recognize those degrees. As a matter of fact as 
the law stood upto the time the Constitution came into 
force, the government was not bound to recognize 
degrees of universities established by private individuals 
or bodies and generally speaking the Government only 
recognized degrees of universities established by it by 
law. No private individual or body could before 1950 
insist that the degrees of any university established by 
him or it must be recognized by government. Such 
recognition depended upon the will of Government 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
11
generally expressed through statute. The importance of 
the recognition of Government in matters of this kind 
cannot be minimized. This position continued even after 
the Constitution came into force. It was only in 1956 that 
by sub-s.(1) of S.22 of the University Grants 
Commission Act (No.3 of 1956), it was laid down that : 
“the right of conferring or granting 
degrees shall be exercised only by a 
University established or incorporated 
by or under a Central Act, a Provincial 
Act or  a State Act or an institution 
deemed to be a University under Section 
3 or an institution specially empowered 
by an Act of Parliament to confer or 
grant degrees.”  
Sub-Section (2) thereof further provided that : 
“save as provided in sub-s. (1), no 
person or authority shall confer, or 
grant, or hold himself or itself as entitled 
to confer or grant any degree.” 
 
S.23 further prohibited the use of the word 
“university” by an educational institution unless it is 
established by law. It was only thereafter that no private 
individual or body could grant a degree in India. 
Therefore, it was possible for the Muslim minority to 
establish a university before the constitution came into 
force, though the degrees conferred by such a university 
were not bound to be recognized by Government.”  
 
In view of above principle, it is held that a degree, if issued by an institution 
other than a recognized university by the Government is not acceptable. 
Reference may be made to Section 4(c) of the University of the Punjab Act, 
1973 for precedent.  
16. 
It is worth to mention here that “Deeni Madaris” in the country are 
being run/managed mostly in private sector without any statutory sanction,  
different to other educational institutions and universities, which are 
functioning under the general education system. Some of “Deeni Madaris,” 
however, have obtained registration under the Societies Registration Act, 
1860, whereas others are being run without having affiliation either with 
any university or Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. Now 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
12
Government had promulgated Pakistan Madrasah Education (Establishment 
and Affiliation of Model Dini Madaris) Board Ordinance 2001 [herein after 
referred to as “Dini Madrasah Ordinance 2001”] to establish such model 
Madaris and model Darul-Ulooms in which the Islamic education is the 
main component and it includes courses and curricula of general education 
system. According to preamble, the object of promulgating this Ordinance 
is to provide for securing the registration, regulation, standardization and 
uniformity of curricula and standard of education of the “Deeni Madaris” 
imparting specialized Islamic education in Pakistan with the general 
education system, in order to enable recognition of equivalence of the 
degrees, certificates and “Sanad” awarded by such institutions, to regulate 
their examination system and the matters connected therewith or ancillary 
thereto. A cursory glance on the curricula of the Wafaq/Tanzeem-ul-
Madaris and individual institutions, reproduced herein above, would show 
that except specialized Islamic Education, the students are not being taught 
a single subject of general education system enabling them to join the 
mainstream and compete with educated class of the country, for 
employment or any other purpose, including the election of Parliament and 
Provincial Assemblies and of Local Government. We feel sorry for a 
student of “Deeni Madrasah” who spends approximately same period which 
is spent by a student of general education system in recognized institutions 
but former had no future on the basis of “Sanad” except for teaching 
purposes in the subject of Islamiat  and Arabic or for the purpose of 
pursuing Higher education in the same subjects, but without any future 
prospects in other walks of life.  
17. 
Now adverting to the status of IBCC (Inter Board Committee of 
Chairmen), it is to be observed that Government of Pakistan, Ministry of 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
13
Education, issued notification No.F.5-5/90-JAE (CW) dated 22nd April 
1990, which reads as under: 
 “In exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub-
Section-1 of section 3 of the Federal Supervision of 
Curricula, Textbooks and Maintenance of Standards 
of Education Act 1976 read with Notification 
No.D.773/76-JEA (CW) dated 4th December, 1976, 
the Federal Government is further pleased to 
appoint the Inter Board Committee of Chairmen 
(IBCC) to be the competent Authority for 
determining of equivalence of Certificate/Diplomas 
up to Higher Secondary level.”   
Later on, a meeting of 67th Equivalence Committee was held on  
14th January 1996, wherein the case of a student, who had applied for 
equivalence certificate, was examined and recommendations were made to 
treat Shahada-tul-Sanvia-tul-Aama course equivalent to SSC and Shahada-
tul-Sanvia-tul- Khasa equivalent to HSSC, subject to passing of English, 
Urdu and Pakistan Studies at respective level (SSC or HSSC) from 
AIOU/Boards of Pakistan in the absence of their own. In this meeting, it 
was further observed that Wafaq/Tanzeem-ul Madaris and individual 
institutions may revise their courses by including the subjects of English, 
Urdu and Pakistan Studies so they may have comparable package of 
subjects like SSC and HSSC scheme of studies, but no steps have been 
taken so far in this behalf, as a result whereof such certificates cannot be 
utilized by the students of “Deeni Madaris” for any useful purpose like the 
“Sanad of Shahadat-ul-Aalmia which at least can be used for teaching 
purposes and pursuing higher studies. It is to be seen that IBCC has also 
recognized/approved the same “Deeni Madaris” which are recognized by 
the UGC/HEC vide notification No. IBCC/ES/Misc/1219 dated 21st July 
2005.   
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
14
18. 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner (in 
CP.1622-L/2005) contented that under Section 152(1)(e) of Ordinance 
2001, a candidate is not bound to produce a certificate of Matriculation if he 
has higher academic qualification than the Matriculation or Secondary 
School Certificate  issued by a “Deeni Madrasah”. According to him 
“Sanads” possessed by the petitioners fulfill this condition, therefore, they 
were not required to produce equivalence certificate.  
19. 
We are not inclined to entertain his arguments in view of the fact that 
under  Section 152 (1)(e) of the Ordinance 2001, a candidate can qualify to 
contest the elections if he has academic qualification equivalent to 
Matriculation or Secondary School Certificate. Here the word “equivalent” 
is of much significance. This word has not been defined either in the Act or 
any of the statutes discussed herein-above. Therefore, reliance is to be 
placed on its dictionary meanings In Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth 
Edition) the word “equivalent” has been defined as follows: 
 
“equivalent, adj. 1. Equal in value, 
force, amount, effect, or significance. 
2. 
Corresponding 
in 
effect 
or 
function; 
nearly 
equal; 
virtually 
identical.  
 
 
In “Corpus Juris Secundum” (Volume 30A) the word “equivalent” has 
been defined as under:  
 
 
“equivalent. As an Adjective. Alike 
in significance and value; as good as; 
equal or identical; identical in effect; 
equal in worth or value, force, power, 
effect, import, and the like; equally 
good; equal so far as concerns the 
matter under consideration; of equal 
value, force, import, and effect; 
having 
equal 
or 
corresponding 
import, meaning, or significance; of 
the same import or meaning.  
 
 
 
 
In “Words and Phrases” (Volume 15) published by West Publishing Co., 
the word “equivalent” has been defined as follows:  
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
15
 
“equivalent” To be ‘equivalent to’ 
means to be equal in value, to be the 
same, corresponding to and to be 
worth.  
         The word ‘equivalent’ has been 
defined to mean ‘equal in value, area, 
volume, force, meaning, or the like; 
synonym: alike, identical.”  
 
A perusal of above definitions of the word ‘equivalent’ makes it abundantly 
clear that a “Sanad” holder should possess academic qualification having 
the same value as that of Matriculation Certificate. A “Sanad” cannot be 
considered equivalent to a Matriculation Certificate unless an equivalence 
certificate has been obtained from the IBCC. As discussed above the IBCC 
will issue equivalence certificate if a candidate has passed additional 
examination of English, Urdu and Pakistan Studies at SSC or HSSC level 
from AIOU/Boards of Pakistan. Admittedly the petitioners have not passed 
the examination of these subjects from any of these institutions. As such, 
the argument of the learned counsel has no substance. 
20. 
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Election 
Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had allowed to contest elections of 
Parliament, Provincial Assemblies, etc. by issuing a notification dated 
29.7.2002 to the “Sanad” holders from Wafaq/Tanzeem-ul Madaris and 
individual institutions therefore, they are also qualified to contest Local 
Government Elections. It may be noted that firstly the notification issued by 
the ECP is not under discussion in present proceedings; secondly, the 
educational qualification for the election of Parliament and Provincial 
Assemblies is different from the educational qualification of a Nazim or 
Naib Nazim under Section 152(1)(e) of Ordinance, 2001. Therefore, 
confining ourselves to the extent of Local Government Elections under 
Ordinance 2001, the question of validity or otherwise of the notification 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
16
issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan will be considered 
separately at appropriate time.  
21. 
We have examined the “Sanads” of the petitioners in each petition 
separately keeping in view the approved list of the recognized “Deeni 
Madaris” reproduced herein above. Except the “Sanad” possessed by Saeed 
Ahmad (petitioner in CPLA No.1622-L/2005) the “Sanads” of remaining 
petitioners have been issued by the “Deeni Madaris” which have not been 
approved/recognized by UGC/HEC. But, “Sanad” possessed by petitioner 
Saeed Ahmed is also not acceptable because he had not qualified 
examination in additional subjects, discussed herein above, from a 
university recognized by the Government nor equivalence certificate has 
been obtained by him.  
 
Thus, it is held that petitioners have failed to satisfy the requirement 
of Section 152(1)(e) of the Ordinance 2001 and they are not qualified to 
contest the Local Government Elections.   
22. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner in CPLA No.1622-L/2005 
contended that notification No.IBCC/ES/MISC/1219 dated 21.7.2005, 
relied upon by District Returning Officers as well as the High Court to 
conclude that petitioners had not obtained equivalence certificate of the 
“Deeni Madaris” mentioned therein, has no nexus with the present cases as 
after the promulgation of Dini Madrasah Ordinance, 2001 such certificate 
has to be issued by the Board under this Ordinance.  
 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Attorney General for Pakistan 
stated that equivalence certificate is to be issued either by Higher Education 
Commission or by the IBCC but as far as the Board under Section 5(j) of 
the Dini Madrasah Ordinance, 2001 is concerned, it is empowered only to 
approve equivalence of degrees, diplomas, Sanads or certificates of the 
“Deeni Madaris” duly registered with the Board.  
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
17
23. 
In this context it is to be noted that in view of above discussion, 
equivalence certificate is to be issued either by the UGC/HEC or by IBCC 
in respect of “Sanads” issued by “Deeni Madaris” recognized by the Board 
under Dini Madrasah Ordinance 2001 and the students have qualified the 
examination according to curricula provided by the Board, Therefore, 
argument being without force is repelled.   
24. 
Learned counsel in CPLA No. 1579-L of 2005 contended that 
respondent Muhammad Sharif had no locus standi to file writ petition under 
Article 199 of the Constitution, challenging the “Sanad” of petitioner, as no 
one had raised objection on his nomination papers at the time of scrutiny.  
 
The objection so raised by the learned counsel would have no impact 
on his case because his “Sanad” has also been found not acceptable for the 
criteria discussed above.  
25. 
Learned counsel in CPLA No. 1597-L of 2005 contended that in 
addition to “Sanad” issued by “Deeni Madrasah”, petitioner is also in 
possession of a matriculation certificate, therefore, he was qualified to 
contest the elections.  
 
The argument is unfounded because the matriculation certificate 
possessed by him has been found bogus by the High Court in view of the 
report from the concerned Board.  
26. 
Learned counsel in CPLA No. 1600- L of 2005 urged that the 
“Sanad” obtained by the petitioner is acceptable because the “Madrasah” 
wherefrom he has obtained it, is affiliated with the Shah Abdul Latif Bhattai 
University, Khairpur Sindh.  
 
It may be noted that the “Sanad” issued by “Deeni Madrasah” having 
affiliation with the university would not be acceptable unless it is shown 
that in view of the notification dated 17th November 1982, petitioner has 
passed examination in additional subjects at B.A. level.   
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
18
27. 
In CPLA No.1624-L of 2005, the “Sanad” has been obtained from a 
“Deeni Madrasah” of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. UGC/HEC which is not a 
recognized “Madrasah” by UGC/HEC nor equivalence certificate has been 
obtained by him. In addition to it, learned counsel for caveat relied upon a 
letter dated 12.8.2001, issued by the Government of Azad Jammu & 
Kashmir Directorate of Religious Affairs, contents whereof have not been 
denied by the learned counsel for petitioner. A perusal of this letter 
indicates that the “Sanad” of the petitioner has been found to be bogus by 
the concerned authority of the Government.  
28. 
Thus, it is concluded that :- 
i) 
If “Sanad” i.e. Shahadat-ul-Aalmia-Fil-Uloom- Ul-Arabia-
Wal-Islamia obtained by a candidate from a “ Deeni 
Madrasah” (seminary), which is duly recognized by 
UGC/HEC and its holder had passed examination of 
additional subjects as it has been mentioned in notification 
dated 17th November 1982 (No.8-418/Acad/82/128) issued by 
UGC/HEC and equivalence certificate has also been issued by 
Higher Education Commission under Section 10(o) of the 
Higher Education Commission Ordinance 2002, then it is 
acceptable for the purpose of employment and for any other 
purpose including the elections of Local Government.  
AND 
ii) 
“Sanad” of Shahada-tul-Sanvia-tul-Aama (SSC) and Shahada-
tul-Sanvia-tul-Khasa (HSSC), if obtained by a candidate from 
recognized “Deeni Madrasah” by UGC/HEC and he has also 
passed examination of English, Urdu and Islamic Studies, 
from any Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, 
and had obtained equivalence certificate from IBCC, in 
CP.1569-L/2005, etc.  
19
pursuance of notification No.IBCC/ES/Misc/1219 dated  
21st July 2005 read with notification No.F.5-5/90-JAE(CW) 
dated 22nd April 1990 he shall be qualified to contest the 
Local Government Elections, according to the provisions of 
Section 152(1)(e) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 
2001.  
As a result of above discussion, impugned judgments passed by 
Lahore High Court are confirmed and petitions are dismissed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CJ. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
J.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lahore, the  
 
 
 
 
 
 
J. 
16th August, 2005 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.  
