IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
  
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1083 OF 2017 
(On appeal from order dated 20.6.2017, passed by the 
Election Commission of Pakistan, in Case No.7(4)/2016-Law) 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.3148 OF 2017 
(On appeal from judgment dated 28.7.2017, passed by the 
Islamabad High Court in W.P. No.2604/2017) 
 
 
Raja Shaukat Aziz Bhatti  
(in both cases) 
 
… Appellant (s)/ 
    Petitioner (s) 
Versus 
Major (R) Iftikhar Mehmood Kiani 
(in CA.1083/2017) 
 
Major (R) Iftikhar Mehmood Kiani  
and another 
(in CP.3148/2017) 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondent (s) 
 
 
 
For Appellant (s)/ 
      Petitioner (s) 
: Malik Waheed Anjum, ASC with 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(in both cases) 
 
  
For Respondent 
No.1 (in both cases) 
: Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa,  
Sr. ASC with 
Syed Iqbal Hussain Gillani, ASC  
assisted by  
Sardar Shahbaz Ali Khan Khosa, Adv.  
Rai Muddassur Iqbal, Advocate 
Mr. Naz Gul Shah, Advocate 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
  
For HEC 
: Mian Muhammad Hanif, ASC with 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
 
  
For ECP 
: Malik Mujtaba Ahmad, 
Additional Director General 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
2 
 
  
For the Federation 
On Court Notice 
: Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, DAG 
assisted by Barrister Minaal Tariq 
 
Mirza Nassar Ahmad, DAG 
 
  
Dates of Hearing 
: 07.02.2018, 19.02.2018, 20.02.2018, 
06.03.2018, 07.03.2018, 13.03.2015  
and 15.03.2018 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
  
 
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.- Through this common 
judgment, it is proposed to decide Civil Appeal No.1083 
of 2017 and Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.3148 
of 2017 inter se the same parties and involving 
common questions of law and fact. The aforesaid Civil 
Appeal bearing No.1083 of 2017 under Section 103-AA 
of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 (RoPA) is 
directed against the Order dated 20.06.2017, passed 
by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP); and the 
above titled Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal bearing 
No.3148 
of 
2017 
under 
Article 
185(3) 
of 
the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 
is directed against the judgment dated 28.07.2017, 
passed by the learned Islamabad High Court, in Writ 
Petition No.2604 of 2017. 
2. 
 
The brief facts necessary for adjudication of 
the lis at hand are that the Appellant/Petitioner 
contested the elections for the Provincial Assembly of 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
3 
the Province of the Punjab from PP-4, Rawalpindi-IV, 
held in May, 2013, and was declared as the Returned 
Candidate. An application was field by the Respondent 
[Major (R) Iftikhar Mehmood Kiani] before the Election 
Commission 
of 
Pakistan 
praying 
that 
the 
Appellant/Petitioner be de-notified as a Member of the 
Provincial 
Assembly 
as 
he 
(the 
present 
Appellant/Petitioner) had used false testimonials and 
made a mis-declaration while contesting the elections 
for the seat of the Provincial Assembly held in 2008. 
On the basis of the aforesaid application and 
purportedly in pursuance of an inquiry conducted on 
the orders of this Court dated 15.06.2010 passed in 
C.M.A. No.1624 of 2010 in Civil Appeal No.409 of 2010 
reported as Muhammad Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz and 
others (PLD 2010 SC 828) the ECP concluded that, in 
fact, the Appellant/Petitioner had contested the 
elections in the year 2008 by using false testimonials 
and vide impugned Order dated 20.06.2017, the 
Notification in favour of the Appellant/Petitioner as a 
Returned Candidate was withdrawn and follow up 
actions were directed to be taken.  
 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
4 
3. 
 
The Civil Appeal No.1083 of 2017 has been 
filed by the Appellant purportedly under Section 103-
AA(4) of RoPA against the impugned Order dated 
20.06.2017.  
4. 
 
The said impugned Order dated 20.06.2017 
passed by the ECP was also challenged before the 
learned 
Islamabad 
High 
Court 
by 
the 
Appellant/Petitioner through Writ Petition No.2604 of 
2017, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 
28.07.2017 and the same has been challenged before 
this Court through the instant Civil Petition for Leave 
to Appeal No.3148 of 2017.   
5. 
 
It is contended by the learned counsel for the 
Appellant/Petitioner that the impugned Order of the 
ECP dated 20.06.2017, is wholly without jurisdiction. 
It is his case that the elections were conducted in May, 
2013 wherein the Appellant/Petitioner was declared as 
a Returned Candidate and a Notification, in this behalf, 
was issued by the ECP on 22.05.2013. In terms of 
Section 103-AA sub-section 4 of RoPA, the ECP is 
conferred with the jurisdiction to declare the elections 
null and void for the reasons mentioned in the said 
provisions. However, such powers could only be 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
5 
exercised within 60 days of the issuance of the 
Notification declaring the result, whereafter, the ECP 
becomes functus officio. In the instant case, the 
impugned Order has been passed by the ECP 
purportedly under Section 103-AA of RoPA more than 
three years after the issuance of the Notification, 
declaring the Appellant/Petitioner as a Returned 
Candidate, hence, is wholly without jurisdiction and 
non-est in the eye of law.  
6. 
 
It is further contended that upon the 
allegations that the Appellant/Petitioner had used false 
and fake educational testimonials to support his 
candidature in the elections of 2008, an FIR was 
registered at the behest of the ECP against the present 
Appellant/Petitioner and the conclusion drawn by the 
Investigating Officer was that no crime had been 
committed and the allegations are false and fictitious. 
In this backdrop, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 
was filed before the concerned Magistrate by the police 
recommending cancellation of the case. The Magistrate 
concurred with the findings of the police and cancelled 
the case. The ECP challenged the said Order before the 
learned Lahore High Court and a Constitution Petition 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
6 
filed, in this behalf, was dismissed. Whereafter, the 
jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by filing Criminal 
Petition for Leave to Appeal bearing No.111 of 2013 in 
which leave was granted vide Order dated 10.07.2013. 
However, the Criminal Appeal bearing No.152 of 2013 
arising therefrom was disposed of as having become 
infructuous. Contemporaneously, the ECP instituted a 
criminal complaint against the Appellant/Petitioner on 
the same allegations. Such criminal complaint was 
dismissed and the ECP has challenged the said Order 
before the learned Lahore High Court which matter is 
pending, however, to-date not even a notice has been 
issued to the Appellant/Petitioner. In the above 
circumstances, it is contended by the learned counsel 
that 
on 
the 
allegations 
from 
which 
the 
Appellant/Petitioner has been exonerated by the Court 
of competent jurisdiction through an acquittal and 
separately by cancellation of the FIR, the ECP could 
not return a finding to the contrary and de-notify the 
Appellant/Petitioner by holding that his educational 
testimonials are fake. In this behalf, it is also urged 
that the findings recorded in the impugned Order dated 
20.06.2017, even otherwise, are not sustainable in law 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
7 
as the original record was not available with the ECP 
which could form the basis of any such findings. It is 
added that the impugned Order of the ECP hinges 
upon an inquiry report of the Additional District and 
Sessions Judge, Gujar Khan. The said report is 
available on the file which is in two different formats 
with two different sets of contents. Thus, the report of 
the said Additional District and Sessions Judge 
referred to by the ECP is at least unreliable, if not, 
forged.  
7. 
 
It is further contended that even if it is 
assumed that the proceedings have been initiated on 
the instructions of this Court contained in the 
judgment reported as Muhammad Rizwan Gill (supra), 
a perusal of the above-said judgment would indicate 
that a de-notification could only follow a guilty verdict 
in proceedings initiated by the ECP before a Criminal 
Court in pursuance of the direction of this Court. In 
the instant case, the Appellant/Petitioner has been 
acquitted, hence, the question of de-notification did not 
arise.  
8. 
 
Without prejudice to above, it was further 
contended that the ECP by way of the impugned Order 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
8 
dated 20.06.2017 has presumed that in the elections of 
2008, 
the 
Appellant/Petitioner 
had 
claimed 
his 
educational qualification to be B.A. In fact, the 
Appellant/Petitioner never claimed to be a B.A nor 
submitted a Degree of B.A from any Pakistani 
University but only claimed to have a qualification 
equivalent to B.A. Thus, in the circumstances, the 
question of the Appellant/Petitioner having appended a 
fake B.A. Degree from the University of the Punjab did 
not arise, hence, he could not be panelized for such 
imaginary act especially when the two learned Courts 
of competent jurisdiction have held to the contrary. It 
was added that the Appellant/Petitioner in fact had 
been awarded Diplomas from the Victoria College of 
Technology and E-Commerce, United Kingdom, which 
as per his understanding was equivalent to B.A. It is 
nobody case that such Diplomas were forged or 
fabricated. Even if it has now been discovered that the 
said Diplomas are not equivalent to B.A., at best, this 
fact would impact the elections of 2008, where the 
minimum educational qualification was prescribed but 
it would be irrelevant for the elections held in May, 
2013 in view of the change in law. In support of his 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
9 
contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon 
the judgments of this Court reported as (1) Mian 
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others v. Imran Ahmed 
Khan Niazi and others (PLD 2018 SC 1), (2) 
Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan Niazi and 
others (PLD 2018 SC 189), (3) Imran Ahmad Khan 
Niazi v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister 
of 
Pakistan/Member 
National 
Assembly, 
Prime 
Minister’s House, Islamabad and 9 others (PLD 2017 
SC 265), (4) Muhammad Nasir Mahmood and another 
v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of 
Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad 
(PLD 2009 SC 107), (5) Syed Fakhar Imam v. Chief 
Election Commission of Pakistan and others (PLD 2008 
SC 730), (6) Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry v. 
Mumtaz Ahmad Tarar and others (2016 SCMR 1) and 
(7) Bartha Ram v. Lala Mehar Lal Bheel and another 
(1995 SCMR 684). 
9. 
 
The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 
controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the 
learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
Appellant/Petitioner 
by 
contending that this Court in the case of Muhammad 
Rizwan Gill (supra) had categorically directed the ECP 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
10
to verify the educational testimonials of all the 
Parliamentarians. In pursuance of the aforesaid 
judgment of this Court, the ECP embarked upon an 
exercise as directed, in this behalf. The educational 
testimonials submitted by the Appellant/Petitioner 
with his Nomination Papers while contesting the 
elections held in the year 2008, were sent by ECP to 
the HEC for verification, which concluded that the 
Appellant/Petitioner had claimed himself to be a holder 
of B.A. Degree and a copy whereof had been appended 
with his Nomination Papers. On verification from the 
University concerned, it transpired that the said Degree 
had been issued in favour of one Shaukat Aziz Sheikh 
son of Abdul Aziz and obviously such a Degree was not 
awarded 
to 
the 
said 
Appellant/Petitioner. 
Consequently, for contesting the elections of 2008, a 
Degree awarded to someone else had been used and 
pressed 
into 
service 
by 
the 
present 
Appellant/Petitioner, who thereby used unfair means 
to get elected and was, therefore, rightly de-notified by 
the ECP.  
10.  
It was further contended that the powers 
exercised by the ECP while passing the impugned 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
11
Order were in compliance of the judgment of this Court 
in the case reported as Muhammad Rizwan Gill 
(supra), hence, the said order cannot be said to be 
without jurisdiction. Even otherwise, it is contended, 
that in terms of Article 218 (3) of the Constitution, it is 
the duty of the ECP to ensure free and fair elections 
and 
guard 
against 
disqualified 
persons 
from 
trespassing into the Parliament. The provisions of 
Article 218 (3) of the Constitution cannot be ignored 
and in fact a more dynamic interpretation needs to be 
given to it and the other Articles of the Constitution, 
including Article 225 must be read in harmony 
therewith. Furthermore, it is contended, the sub-
Constitutional provision of RoPA, 1976 cannot control 
or limit the scope or amplitude of Article 218 (3) of the 
Constitution.  
11.  
In the alternative, it was contended, that it is 
now settled law that in case a person suffering from a 
pre-election disqualification or lack of qualification 
slips through the net at the time of the scrutiny of the 
Nomination Papers, and no application having been 
filed with the ECP immediately after the elections and 
thereafter, no Election Petition filed after the elections 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
12
before the learned Election Tribunal, it does not mean 
that the disqualification has been cured or that the 
missing qualification has been acquired by the flux of 
time. It is further contended that for the last more than 
a half century, this Court has repeatedly held that in 
such an eventuality the Constitutional jurisdiction of 
the learned High Court under Article 199 of the 
Constitution and of this Court under Article 184(3) of 
the Constitution can always be invoked and exercised 
to implement the law and determine the lack of 
qualification or disqualification of a Member of the 
Parliament. In the instant case, the obvious lack of 
qualification of the Appellant/Petitioner is self-evident 
on the record and cannot be ignored by this Court. 
Furthermore, no technical barrier can be erected to 
restrain this Court from exercising its jurisdiction, in 
this behalf. Such jurisdiction has been repeatedly 
exercised by this Court in a host of different 
circumstances. Furthermore, it is added that this 
Court can always exercise one jurisdiction even if 
another 
has 
been 
invoked 
by 
converting 
the 
proceedings.  
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
13
12.  
It was next contended by the learned counsel 
for the Respondent No.1 that in the Nomination Papers 
submitted by the Appellant/Petitioner while contesting 
the elections of 2008, he had shown his educational 
qualification as B.A. Subsequently, interpolation was 
made in the Nomination Papers and it was scribed B.A. 
"ﺮﺑاﺮﺑ ﮯﮐ". The copies of both such documents, one with 
and the other without the interpolation are available on 
the file, leaving no manner of doubt that the said 
Nomination Papers have been tempered with. It is 
added that the Appellant/Petitioner relied upon the 
B.A. Degree, which admittedly was found not awarded 
to him having been earned by one Shaukat Aziz 
Sheikh. 
Conveniently 
the 
original 
record 
has 
disappeared and the Appellant/Petitioner is trying to 
take unfair advantage thereof. In the alternative, it is 
added that the Appellant/Petitioner has now relied 
upon the Diplomas from the Victoria College of 
Technology and E-Commerce, United Kingdom. This 
Court inquired about its equivalence from the Higher 
Education Commission (HEC) and it has come on 
record that Victoria College of Technology and E-
Commerce has not been accredited nor can award an 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
14
educational degree equivalent to B.A. recognized by the 
HEC. In the circumstances, there can be no escape 
from the fact that the Appellant/Petitioner had made a 
false declaration in his Nomination Papers in the 
elections of 2008 by claiming to possess educational 
qualification of B.A. or B.A. "ﺮﺑاﺮﺑ ﮯﮐ". Thus, in terms of 
the law as settled by this Court in its various 
pronouncements, 
the 
Appellant/Petitioner 
having 
made a false declaration in his Nomination Papers was 
neither honest nor ameen, and, therefore, not qualified 
in terms of Article 62(1) of the Constitution. In the 
circumstances, it is contended, that not to dismiss the 
Petition and the Appeal would perpetuate an illegality 
and in fact an un-Constitutional act. In support of his 
contentions, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 
has relied upon the judgments of this Court reported 
as (1) Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v. Mian Muhammad 
Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan/Member 
National Assembly, Prime Minister’s House, Islamabad 
and 9 others (PLD 2017 SC 265), (2) Malik Iqbal 
Ahmad Langrial v. Jamshed Alam and others (PLD 
2013 SC 179), (3) Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
15
others (PLD 2012 SC 1089), (4) Muhammad Rizwan 
Gill v. Nadia Aziz and others (PLD 2010 SC 828) and (5) 
Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 
98).   
13.  
Heard. Available record perused. 
14.  
The grievance of the Appellant/Petitioner 
arises out of the Order of the ECP dated 20.06.2017 
whereby the Notification in his favour as a Returned 
Candidate to the Provincial Assembly of the Province of 
the Punjab was withdrawn. The Appellant/Petitioner 
has directly challenged the said Order before this Court 
purportedly under Section 103-AA(4) of RoPA through 
Civil Appeal bearing No.1083 of 2017. It appears that 
by way of abundant caution the Appellant/Petitioner 
also challenged the said Order of the ECP dated 
20.06.2017 through a Constitutional Petition i.e. Writ 
Petition bearing No.2064 of 2017 before the learned 
Islamabad High Court, which was dismissed vide 
judgment dated 28.07.2017, and has been challenged 
before this Court through Civil Petition for Leave to 
Appeal No.3148 of 2017.  
15.  
At the very outset, the Appellant/Petitioner 
called into question the jurisdiction of the ECP to pass 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
16
the impugned Order de-notifying him as a Member of 
the Provincial Assembly. In pith and substance, it is 
the case of the Appellant/Petitioner that with regard to 
an alleged pre-election disqualification or lack of 
qualification of a candidate or an illegality in the 
conduct of the elections, the jurisdiction of the ECP to 
pass orders under Section 103-A of RoPA can only be 
exercised prior to the expiry of 60 days from the 
notification of the result of the elections. In the instant 
case, it is contended, that the impugned Order of the 
ECP has been passed several years after the original 
Notification declaring the Appellant/Petitioner as an 
elected Member of the Provincial Assembly was issued.  
16.  
A perusal of the impugned Order of the ECP 
dated 20.06.2017 reveals that pursuant to the 
judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Rizwan 
Gill (supra) the ECP and the HEC inquired into the 
validity 
and 
authenticity 
of 
the 
educational 
qualification of the Members of the Parliament and the 
Provincial Assemblies. It is in pursuance to the 
aforesaid directions of this Court that the ECP 
conducted the requisite inquiries and purportedly 
passed the impugned Order dated 20.06.2017. The 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
17
aforesaid is clear and obvious from paragraph 2 of the 
Order of the ECP dated 20.06.2017. Thus, it appears 
that the contentions of the learned counsel for the 
Appellant/Petitioner pertaining to the assumption of 
jurisdiction of the ECP after the lapse of 60 days may 
not be strictly applicable as the ECP was purportedly 
acting in compliance of the directions of this Court. 
17.  
Furthermore, it is the case of the Respondents 
and as is also evident from the Order of the ECP dated 
20.06.2017 that Article 218(3) of the Constitution must 
necessarily be read and interpreted in its broadest 
amplitude thereby conferring jurisdiction on the ECP to 
pass appropriate orders at any stage unfettered by 
technical restrictions imposed by any sub-Constitutional 
legislation pertaining to the conduct of elections 
including RoPA. In this behalf, Article 225 of the 
Constitution must also be read in harmony with Article 
218(3) of the Constitution. The ECP, in this behalf, also 
referred to the judgments of this Court including the 
judgment reported as (1) Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmad 
Khan Bar v. Chief Election Commissioner Islamabad and 
others (PLD 2010 SC 817), (2) Muhammad Rizwan Gill v. 
Nadia Aziz and others (PLD 2010 SC 828) and (3) Syeda 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
18
Waheeda Shah v. Election Commission of Pakistan 
through Chief Election Commissioner and 4 others (PLD 
2013 Sindh 117). However, the question of jurisdiction of 
the ECP to pass such order de-notifying the Member of 
the Parliament or the Provincial Assembly on account of 
a pre-election disqualification or lack of qualification after 
a lapse of 60 days from the original Notification is not 
free from difficulty. 
18.  
Be that as it may, this Court when confronted 
with the issue of jurisdiction, the ECP with regard to pre-
election disqualification or lack of qualification in its 
judgment dated 23.02.2018 passed in Civil Petition 
No.3131 of 2017, after examining various judgments of 
this Court, including the judgments reported as (1) 
Muhammad Jibran Nasir and others Vs. The State and 
others (PLD 2018 SC 351), (2) Muhammad Hanif Abbasi 
v. Jahangir Khan Tareen and others (PLD 2018 SC 114), 
(3) Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan Niazi and 
others (PLD 2018 SC 189), (4) Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi 
v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of 
Pakistan/Member National Assembly, Prime Minister’s 
House, Islamabad and 9 others (PLD 2017 SC 265), (5) 
Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan and 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
19
others (PLD 2014 SC 206), (6) Mian Najeeb-ud-Din 
Owaisi and another v. Amir Yar Waran and others (PLD 
2013 SC 482), (7) Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial v. 
Jamshed Alam and others (PLD 2013 SC 179), (8) Air 
Marshal (Retd) Muhammad Asghar Khan v. General 
(Retd) Mirza Aslam Baig, Former Chief of Army Staff and 
others (PLD 2013 SC 1), (9) Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi 
v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and 
others (PLD 2012 SC 1089), (10) Muhammad Azhar 
Siddiqui v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2012 
SC 774), (11) Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan 
through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad 
and others (PLD 2012 SC 132), (12) Shahid Orakzai v. 
Pakistan through Secretary Law, Ministry of Law, 
Islamabad (PLD 2011 SC 365), (13) Muhammad Rizwan 
Gill v. Nadia Aziz and others (PLD 2010 SC 828), (14) 
Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmad Khan Bar v. Chief Election 
Commissioner Islamabad and others (PLD 2010 SC 817), 
(15) Syed Fakhar Imam v. Chief Election Commission of 
Pakistan and others (PLD 2008 SC 730), (16) Mian 
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and 
others (PLD 1993 SC 473), (17) Miss Benazir Bhutto v. 
Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1988 SC 416), 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
20
(18) Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1970 
SC 98), (19) Muhammad Akram v. DCO, Rahim Yar Khan 
and others (2017 SCMR 56), (20) Ch. Muhammad Ashraf 
Warraich and another v. Muhammad Nasir Cheema and 
others (2016 SCMR 998), (21) Jamshoro Joint Venture 
Ltd. and others v. Khawaja Muhammad Asif and others 
(2014 SCMR 1858), (22) Allah Dino Khan Bhayo v. 
Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and others 
(2013 SCMR 1655), (23) Muhammad Khan Junejo v. 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Law 
Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others (2013 
SCMR 1328), (24) Abdul Ghafoor Lehri v. Returning 
Officer, PB-29, Naseerabad-II and others (2013 SCMR 
1271), (25) Muddasar Qayyum Nahra v. Ch. Bilal Ijaz 
(2011 SCMR 80), (26) Suo Motu Case No. 10 of 2009 
(Complaint regarding establishment of Makro-Habib 
Store on playground) (2010 SCMR 885), and (27) Bartha 
Ram v. Lala Mehar Lal Bheel and another (1995 SCMR 
684), concluded as follows: 
“27. An 
overview 
of 
the 
afore-quoted 
provisions of the Constitution, as interpreted 
by this Court through its various juridical 
pronouncements referred to and reproduced 
herein above leads to an irresistible and 
irrefutable 
conclusion 
that 
our 
Constitutional dispensation is erected upon 
the democratic principle that the authority 
vest with the people of Pakistan can only be 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
21
exercised 
through 
their 
chosen 
representatives. Such authority, including 
the power of law making and control over the 
public exchequer is to be conferred upon the 
chosen representatives by way of trust and 
the trust can only be reposed upon those 
who are worthy thereof.  
28. 
 In the above context, the qualification 
and disqualification of persons, entitled to 
act as the chosen representatives of the 
people and to act on their behalf as Members 
of the Majlis-e-Shoora and the Provincial 
Assemblies are set forth in the Constitution 
itself, more particularly, in Articles 62 and 
63 
thereof 
as 
well 
as 
other 
sub-
Constitutional 
legislation. 
An 
elaborate 
process and procedure has been prescribed 
by law to filter out those who are disqualified 
or not qualified to contest the elections to 
the 
Majlis-e-Shoora 
and 
the 
Provincial 
Assemblies as is apparent primarily from the 
provisions of ROPA of 1976. With regard to 
pre-election disqualification, such process 
includes objections before the Returning 
Officer at the time of filing of the Nomination 
Papers, an application to the ECP under 
Section 103-A of ROPA of 1976. And 
subsequently, an Election Petition before the 
Election Tribunal established under Article 
225 of the Constitution. If no objection is 
raised or challenge thrown or relevant 
proceedings initiated before the appropriate 
forum 
at 
the 
appropriate 
time, 
the 
disqualification of a candidate is not cured 
nor an abscent qualification acquired.   
  
29. 
Consequently, where a disqualified or 
unqualified person slips through the cracks 
sneaks into the Majlis-e-Shoora or the 
Provincial Assemblies, his presence in the 
said 
House 
can 
always 
be 
challenged 
through 
exercise 
of 
the 
Constitutional 
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 
184(3) of the Constitution and before the 
learned High Court under Article 199 of the 
Constitution by way of a Writ in the nature 
of quo warranto. Even where a matter comes 
before this Court regarding the qualification 
or disqualification of a Member of the Majlis-
e-Shoora 
or 
the 
Provincial 
Assemblies 
otherwise by way of proceedings other than 
under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, this 
Court not only has the jurisdiction to convert 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
22
such proceedings to proceedings under 
Article 184(3) of the Constitution but  is 
bound to do so, as to permit an unqualified 
or disqualified person to continue to defile 
and desecrate the Majlis-e-Shoora or the 
Provincial Assemblies and masqulate as a 
chosen representative of the people would 
amount to frustrating the Constitutional 
provisions. In such an eventuality, if this 
Court looks other way, it would perhaps 
constitute a failure to protect and preserve 
the Constitution. 
 
 
 
Thus, we find ourselves unable to 
decline the prayer of the Petitioner to 
examine the merits of the case so as to 
determine on the basis of the material 
available on record whether Respondent 
No.1 was qualified or disqualified from being 
a Member of the Provincial Assembly, KPK. 
Any refusal on our part to avoid or evade 
such 
an 
exercise 
would 
constitutes 
a 
departure from the law as laid down by this 
Court and perhaps would even amount to a 
betrayal of the Constitution. Hence, we 
convert these proceedings into Suo Motu 
proceedings under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution.” 
 
19.  
In view of facts and circumstances narrated 
above and as the settled law referred to above we cannot 
abdicate our responsibility by brushing the issues 
floating on the surface under the carpet. Hence, we have 
no other option but to convert the instant proceedings 
into suo moto proceedings under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution so as to examine the cases of the parties on 
the basis of the material available on record so as to 
examine the Order of the ECP dated 20.06.2017 by 
determining as to whether the Appellant/Petitioner was 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
23
disqualified or not qualified for being a Member of the 
Provincial Assembly under the Constitution. 
20.  
It was perhaps being aware of its own original 
Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution, this Court during the course of hearing of 
the instant cases vide its Order dated 17.08.2017 issue 
the following directions to the HEC: 
 
“3. 
Appellant is directed to provide to HEC 
all the original of testimonials, degree etc. 
including 
Diploma 
in 
Business 
Administration from “Victoria College of 
Technology and E-Commerce”, UK dated 
30.05.2007, 
statedly 
annexed 
with 
his 
nomination papers, within seven days from 
today. HEC in turn shall examine the 
authenticity and obtain verification of the 
above 
noted 
testimonials, 
degree 
and 
Diploma from the respective institutions and 
noted college. Once the authenticity and 
verification is made, HEC shall also provide 
equivalence certificate/qualification status, 
before next date. 
 
 
4. 
Let HEC produce the original letter, 
which is allegedly issued by the appellant, as 
reproduced in the order of this Court dated 
10.07.2013. HEC shall also produce all the 
documents in connection with any inquiry 
conducted by it in relation to verification of 
the testimonials/degrees/diplomas of the 
appellant. 
The 
entire 
record 
of 
ECP 
pertaining to the inquiry, etc., of the 
appellant’s 
testimonials/degrees/diplomas 
should also be requisitioned. The appellant 
is also required to produce his original 
testimonials/degrees/diplomas, 
which 
he 
admittedly claims to be in his possession.” 
 
21.  
The Appellant/Petitioner contested the General 
Elections held in 2008 for a seat of the Provincial 
Assembly of the Province of the Punjab. At that point of 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
24
time, it was the requirement of the law that a candidate 
must be a graduate to be eligible to contest the elections. 
The Appellant/Petitioner submitted his Nomination 
Papers. Though, it is the case of the private Respondent 
and the ECP that the Appellant/Petitioner claimed to 
possess the requisite educational qualification on the 
basis of a B.A. Degree issued by the University of the 
Punjab and it was such Degree which was appended with 
the Nomination Papers and pursuant to the orders of this 
Court in the case reported as Muhammad Rizwan Gill 
(supra) the copies of the said B.A. Degree allegedly 
appended with the Nomination Papers were sent by the 
ECP to the HEC for verification. It is common ground 
between the parties that the said Degree sent to the HEC 
in fact had been earned by and awarded to one Shaukat 
Aziz Sheikh and not to the present Appellant/Petitioner.  
Conveniently for the Appellant/Petitioner the original 
record pertaining to his Nomination Papers of 2008 has 
gone missing. The Officers of the ECP summoned at the 
behest of the Appellant/Petitioner confirmed that the 
said record has been lost and the proceedings initiated 
against some employees of the ECP, in this behalf. The 
aforesaid statement on behalf of the ECP stands reflected 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
25
in the Order of the Court dated 13.03.2018. The claim of 
the Appellant/Petitioner that the Nomination Papers of 
the elections 2008, he had not relied on the B.A. Degree 
issued by the University of the Punjab but Diploma 
issued by the Victoria College of Technology and E-
Commerce, UK is not confidence inspiring. 
22.  
However, we cannot loose sight of the fact that 
the criminal proceedings on the same allegations were 
initiated against the present Appellant/Petitioner in 
which he has been acquitted. The Orders of such 
acquittal today’s holds the field. Thus, perhaps, it would 
be unsafe to hold that the Appellant/Petitioner claimed 
his educational qualification was B.A. while contesting 
the elections of 2008 and in support of his contentions 
he submitted a B.A. Degree from the University of the 
Punjab, which was found to be earned by one Shaukat 
Aziz Sheikh and not the Appellant/Petitioner.  
23.  
The Appellant/Petitioner vehemently has taken 
up a plea before us that in the Nomination Papers 
submitted 
for 
the 
elections 
in 
2008 
he 
held      
specifically stated that his educational qualification was 
B.A. ﺮﺑاﺮﺑ ﮯﮐ and he had made available copies of the 
Diplomas issued by the Victoria College of Technology 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
26
and E-Commerce, UK. As note above, the original record 
of 
the 
Nomination 
Papers as 
submitted 
by 
the 
Appellant/Petitioner in the election of 2008 have 
conveniently been lost.  
24.  
This Court has passed an Order dated 
17.08.2017 
and 
the 
relevant 
portion 
has 
been 
reproduced herein above seeking a Report from the HEC, 
in this behalf. Such report has been received and filed 
before this Court through Civil Misc. Application bearing 
No.6369 of 2017. The said Report makes interesting 
reading and is reproduced herein below in its entirety: 
 
 
“Raja Shaukat Aziz wrote a letter to Mr. 
Rashid Muhammad, Section Officer (Confd). 
Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) 
which was reproduced in the Honorable 
Supreme Court of Pakistan order dated July 
10, 2013 passed in criminal petition number 
111 of 2013. HEC did not possess the 
original letter as it was addressed to the 
Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) by 
the Appellant. However, photo copy of the 
same letter is attached (Annex-I). 
 
2. 
The BA degree held by Raja Shoukat 
Aziz Bhatti from Punjab University, Lahore 
in 1992 under Registration No.89-RP-162 
was forwarded by the ECP to HEC for its 
verification from Punjab University (Annex-
II) the Punjab University verified vide letter 
number 4111-CA dated August 27, 2010 
that “Copy of degree provided by HEC was 
verified for Shaukat Aziz s/o Abdul Aziz 
caste Sheikh by the University of the 
Punjab. The supporting documents/evidence 
for the purpose (Admission Form) is attached 
please” (Annex-III). This was conveyed by 
HEC 
vide 
its 
letter 
No.Ref.5-
3/HEC/A&A/2010/680 dated September 2, 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
27
2010 (Annex-IV) to Mr. M. Rashid Bhatti, 
Section Officer, Election Commission of 
Pakistan.  
 
3. 
Raja 
Shoukat 
Aziz 
through 
his 
representative 
Mr. 
Tauseef 
Mubarik 
submitted 
photocopies 
of 
following 
documents 
for 
equivalence 
of 
foreign 
diplomas obtained from Victoria College of 
Technology and E-Commerce, U.K. along 
with the following documents: (Annex-IV A) 
 
Qualification  
Year  
Institution  
Original 
Documents  
Matric  
1982 
BISE, Rawalpindi  
Not 
submitted  
1-year 
Diploma in 
Commerce  
1996 
Sindh 
Board 
of 
Technical 
Education, 
Karachi  
Not 
submitted  
BBA 
2000 
Al-Khair 
University 
(AJK) 
Not 
submitted  
Diploma in 
Business 
Administration 
2005 
Victoria 
College 
of 
Technology 
and 
E-
Commerce, UK 
Submitted  
Advanced 
Diploma in 
Business 
Administration 
2006 
Victoria 
College 
of 
Technology 
and 
E-
Commerce, UK 
Submitted  
PGD in 
Business 
Administration  
2007 
Victoria 
College 
of 
Technology 
and 
E-
Commerce, UK 
Submitted  
 
The original Degree of BA obtained from The 
University of the Punjab which was sent by 
Election Commission of Pakistan to HEC for 
verification was not produced before this 
Commission on August 24, 2017, while 
submitting aforementioned documents for 
equivalence.  
 
4. 
The ‘Victoria College of Technology and 
E-Commerce’ 
is 
not 
accredited 
degree 
awarding 
Institution 
of 
U.K. 
Therefore, 
Diploma, Advanced Diploma and PGD held 
by the appellant obtained from this non-
accredited institution are Not recognized by 
HEC. The HEC has also informed the same 
to 
appellant 
vide 
letter 
No.8 
(50)HEC/A&A/2017 dated September, 15, 
2017, copy attached (Annex-V) 
 
5. 
As regard photocopy of BBA degree 
obtained by the appellant from Al-Khair 
University 
in 
the 
session 
1998-2000, 
submitted along with above documents was 
attested by HEC on 7th October, 2015 as the 
credentials reflected place of study as 
“Bhimber: AJ&K, on the BBA degree along 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
28
with signatures of Controller of Examination 
and Chancellor of the University.  
 
6. 
Due to the grave irregularities found in 
the 
academic 
operations 
of 
Al-Khair 
University, the admissions at all levels have 
been stopped w.e.f Fall 2016 and the 
verification of the degrees has also been 
suspended. University was also asked to 
provide the lists of all its graduates from the 
date of inception. It was revealed during the 
scrutiny of  the lists of graduates provided 
by the Al-Khair University that the appellant 
has not obtained BBA degree through its 
authorized main Campus i.e. from Bhimber 
(AJK) as reflected on the Degree. The degree 
was actually obtained through College of 
Global 
Technologies, 
Rawalpindi 
as 
confirmed from the list provided by the 
University of HEC (Annex-VI). As such this 
college is not recognized by HEC. The matter 
relating 
to 
the 
attestation 
of 
degrees 
obtained though unrecognized colleges of Al-
Khair University is under consideration of 
the Commission for an appropriate decision.”  
 
The above leaves no manner of doubt that the Diplomas 
from the Victoria College of Technology and E-Commerce, 
UK are not equivalent to B.A. Degree issued by any 
University in Pakistan. In this view of the matter, even if, 
the 
contentions 
raised 
on 
behalf 
of 
the 
Appellant/Petitioner, in this behalf, are accepted as the 
gospel truth, the Appellant/Petitioner did not possess the 
requisite educational qualification of being graduate or 
equivalent thereof to be elected as a Member of the 
Provincial Assembly in accordance with the law as was 
applicable at the time when he filed his Nomination 
Papers for the elections held in 2008. The said 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
29
Nomination Papers included his affidavit, as required by 
law, that the Appellant/Petitioner was qualified to 
contest the elections. In the absence of the requisite 
educational qualification required at that point of time, 
the affidavit of the Appellant/Petitioner with his 
Nomination Papers submitted that he was qualified and 
did suffer from any disqualification under the law was 
false.  
25.  
A similar matter came up before this Court 
where a candidate for the General Elections of 2008 filed 
his Nomination Papers supported by an affidavit that he 
possessed the requisite qualification and did not suffer 
the disqualification as set forth in the Constitution and 
the law and it was subsequently discovered that he did 
not have the requisite educational qualification. In the 
said case reported as Abdul Ghafoor Lehri (supra) this 
Court held as follows: 
 
“12. Since the Sanad produced by the 
appellant while contesting election, 2002 has 
been declared not equivalent to B.A. degree 
for the reasons mentioned in the preceding 
paragraphs, therefore, appellant was not at 
all qualified to contest election. Now the 
question arises as to whether the appellant 
is disqualified to contest election, 2013 or 
not. In this regard it is noticed that while 
producing aforesaid Sanad, the appellant 
sworn an affidavit to the effect that the 
Sanad produced by him was issued to him 
by a recognized institution and equivalent to 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
30
a bachelor degree made false statement and 
submitted false or incorrect declaration in 
respect of his educational qualification, thus, 
he was not righteous, sagacious, non-
profligate, honest and Ameen within the 
meaning of Article 62(f) of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as such, 
was not qualified to be elected or chosen as a 
member of Majlis-e-Shoora.” 
 
In view of the law laid down and reproduced herein above 
which has been reiterated repeatedly by this Court it is 
clear and obvious that the Appellant/Petitioner having 
filed a false affidavit with his Nomination Papers for the 
elections held in 2008 could not be deemed to be honest 
and ameen, hence, was not qualified in terms of Article 
62(1)(f) of the Constitution.  
26.  
Adverting now to the argument of the learned 
counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner that lack of 
educational qualification, if any, would be relevant only 
for the General Elections 2008 and not to subsequent 
elections including the elections held in May, 2013. Such 
contention cannot be accepted as has been held by this 
Court in the judgment reported as Malik Iqbal Ahmad 
Langrial (supra) that as a consequence of the false 
affidavit having been filed by a candidate with his 
Nomination Papers in the elections of 2008 such person 
would loose the qualification of being honest also for the 
subsequent elections and would not be entitled to 
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
31
contest such elections or be a Member of the Parliament 
or the Provincial Assembly. A similar view was also taken 
by this Court in the case reported as Malik Umar Aslam 
v. Mrs. Sumaira Malik and others (2014 SCMR 45).  
27.  
The upshot of the above discussion is that the 
Appellant/Petitioner had given a false affidavit with his 
Nomination Papers while contesting the elections held in 
2008. Filing of an affidavit with the Nomination Papers 
was the requirement of the law (RoPA) and the motive for 
filing of false affidavit was to enter the Provincial 
Assembly 
by 
unfair 
means 
by 
making 
false 
representation 
regarding 
the 
required 
educational 
qualification. Thus, the Appellant/Petitioner was not 
honest and ameen in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the 
Constitution and such lack of qualification continuous, 
so as to disentitle the Appellant/Petitioner from being a 
candidate for or being a Member of the Parliament or the 
Provincial Assembly.  
28.  
In this view of the matter, no exception can be 
taken to the Order dated 20.06.2017 of the ECP de-
notifying the Appellant/Petitioner as a Member of the 
Provincial Assembly and there is no occasion for 
interference therewith.  
CA.1083/2017, etc. 
32
29.  
Consequently, 
the 
titled 
Civil 
Appeal 
is 
dismissed as well as the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 
is also dismissed and leave declined.    
 
 
  
 
 
      Judge 
 
 
       
 
 
 
 
      Judge 
 
 
 
 
‘APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
Mahtab H. Sheikh 
 
 
 
 
   
 
      Judge 
 
 
 
 
Announced on 22nd May 2018 at Islamabad. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
