IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi 
 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.166 OF 2021  
 
 
 
 
Ali Asjad Malhi 
 
 
 
 
 
…Appellant(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Ms. Syeda Nosheen Iftikhar and others 
  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. M. Shahzad Shoukat, ASC 
 
Mian Abbas Ahmed, ASC 
 
Mr. M. Sharif Janjua, AOR 
 
For Respondent No.1: 
In person. 
 
For Respondent No.7: 
Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Kandwal, 
ASC  
 
For the E.C.P.: 
Mian Abdul Rauf, ASC  
 
Mr. M. Arshad D.G. E.C.P. 
 
Date of hearing: 
16.03.2021. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
 The impugned judgment of the Election Commission 
of Pakistan (“ECP”) dated 08.03.2021, which was preceded by a 
short order dated 25.02.2021, has been read to the Court. The 
relevant facts of the present lis are that on 20.02.2021, a day 
after the polling in the bye-election of NA-75, Sialkot-IV had 
concluded, respondent No. 1 (a contesting candidate) complained 
Civil Appeal No.166 of 2021 
2
to the Returning Officer and the ECP about irregularities 
committed at twenty polling stations. Thereafter, on completion of 
his preliminary inquiry, the Returning Officer vide report dated 
21.02.2021 accepted the claim of respondent No. 1 only to the 
extent of fourteen polling stations. However, after hearing the 
parties, ECP in its impugned short order dated 25.02.2021 
declared the whole election of NA-75, Sialkot-IV null and void. 
2.  
 
It is accepted by all sides appearing in the matter 
that two persons were killed at one polling station, roughly forty 
polling stations were affected by aerial firing and Presiding 
Officers of twenty polling stations went missing because of which 
they could not hand over the results to the Returning Officer in 
time. More importantly, the underlying tenor of the impugned 
judgment is that the police were silent spectators who did not 
intervene to check the acts of intimidation, harassment and 
violence that took place outside the polling stations on election 
day. In fact, the impugned judgment has observed that neither 
the Inspector General of Police, Punjab nor the Chief Secretary, 
Punjab responded to the ECP’s request on polling day for 
controlling the law and order situation in Daska. Instead, only 
the Federal Government reacted by providing protection through 
Rangers for the polling staff, polling stations and polling material.  
3. 
 
There is no cavil with the proposition that ECP is 
empowered under Article 218(3) of the Constitution read with 
Section 9 of the Elections Act, 2017 (“Act”) to ensure that 
elections are conducted honestly, justly, fairly and lawfully in 
such a manner that coercion, intimidation and pressure tactics 
Civil Appeal No.166 of 2021 
3
are stymied. However, the question before us is: what standard of 
proof, quantum of evidence, scale and severity of violations of law 
will warrant a re-poll in the entire constituency. As it presently 
stands, Section 9 ibid operates in a very limited span of sixty 
days following the publication of the result of an election. The 
jurisdiction of ECP under the said provision partakes of executive 
and quasi-judicial powers that may be exercised promptly to cure 
any irregularity in the conduct of an election. Therefore, the 
benchmarks laid down by the law for the Election Tribunal to 
annul an election and order a re-poll may not strictly apply to the 
ECP under the said Section without suitable modification. In 
such circumstances we would like to examine whether the 
impugned action of the ECP, namely, its allegedly excessive 
response to the prevailing situation in Daska was within its 
jurisdictional parameters. The learned counsel for the parties 
have so far not analyzed the extensive material on record to relate 
the same to the powers and jurisdiction of the ECP under the 
Constitution and the Act. In particular, the following questions 
have not been addressed: 
a. What transgressions on the polling day could 
constitute grave illegalities or violations calling for a 
fresh rather than a partial re-poll? 
b. In what situations would non-pervasiveness of the 
illegalities or violations committed on polling day still 
attract the same result?  
 
4.  
 
To assist the Court in answering these questions, we 
would appreciate if ECP could present a map of the constituency 
labelling the polling stations where specified wrongs were 
Civil Appeal No.166 of 2021 
4
committed along with a chart explaining the said labels. To come 
up for arguments on the foregoing points on 19.03.2021. 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
16th March, 2021 
Azmat/- Meher 
