IN THE SUREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
  (Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Present 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, HCJ  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial 
  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.2693-2694 OF 2018  
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 03.07.2018 passed by  
High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in CP.823-824 of 2018) 
 
 
Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind 
 
… 
… 
Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(in both cases)  
 
 
 
 
Versus 
The Election Tribunal Balochistan, 
Quetta and others  
 
 
… 
… 
Respondents  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(in both cases)  
 
Taj Muhammad Raisani 
 
 
… 
… 
Respondent No.4  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(in CP.2693/2018)  
 
Ghulam Haider  
 
 
 
… 
… 
Respondent No.4  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(in CP.2694/2018)  
 
For the petitioner 
 
: 
Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa, Sr. ASC.   
(in both cases )  
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR.   
  
For respondent No.4 
: 
Mr. M. Amir Nawaz Rana, ASC.  
(in both cases) 
  
For ECP.  
 
 
: 
Mr. M. Arshad, DG (Law), ECP.  
(in both cases) 
 
Date of hearing  
 
: 
19.09.2018. 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
  
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J. The petitioner is a returned 
candidate in the elections of constituency No.PB-17 Kachhi of the Balochistan 
Provincial Assembly and NA-260 Kachhi of the National Assembly. His 
nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officers of both 
constituencies on 19.06.2018 on different grounds. The Appellate Tribunal 
(High Court) vide consolidated judgment dated 26.06.2018 upheld his 
CPs.2693-2694 of 2018 
2
ineligibility to contest the elections for, inter alia, lacking the qualifications 
laid down under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”). The basis of this finding is that in the 
general elections of 2008 in which the petitioner was a returned candidate 
from PB-31 Bolan in the Balochistan Provincial Assembly, he had claimed to 
be a holder of Sanad of Shahad-ul-Aalmia issued by the Jaamia Anwar-ul-
Alum, Sukkar. However, in the next general elections of 2013, the petitioner 
disclosed his educational qualification as Intermediate. The petitioner’s 
failure to disclose his Sanad of Shahad-ul-Aalmia was alleged by the 
objector/respondent No.4 to be concealment and an admission of a false 
statement made in his nomination papers in the year 2008. The petitioner 
was thereby guilty of being not “honest” on the criteria laid down in Article 
62(1)(f) of the Constitution. Accordingly, he was disqualified to contest the 
elections. This view has been considered and endorsed by the learned 
Division Bench of the High Court vide its impugned consolidated judgment 
dated 03.07.2018 passed in constitutional petitions filed by the petitioner to 
challenge the judgment of the learned Appellate Tribunal dated 26.06.2018 
and the original orders by the respective Returning Officers dated 19.06.2018. 
Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.  
2. 
 
The case law relied by both the learned Appellate Tribunal and 
the learned Division Bench of the High Court, namely, Muhammad Rizwan 
Gill vs. Nadia Aziz (PLD 2010 SC 828), Abdul Ghafoor Lehri   vs.  
Returning Officer, PB-29 Naseerabad-II (2013 SCMR 1271) and Iftikhar 
Ahmad Khan Bar vs. Chief Election Commissioner Islamabad & others 
(PLD 2010 SC 817) deal with the use of bogus, fake and forged documents 
claimed by delinquent election candidates to establish their educational 
CPs.2693-2694 of 2018 
3
credentials. The present case does not involve a fake or bogus degree 
therefore none of the said precedents apply. In two of the above-cited cases, 
namely, Muhammad Rizwan Gill and Abdul Ghafoor Lehri, documentary 
and oral evidence was recorded to arrive at the adverse finding against the 
returned candidate. No evidence was recorded in the instant case to sustain 
the finding against the petitioner. Therefore, the rule laid down in the 
judgments relied does not apply here.  Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution 
requires that the disqualification of an election candidate must be founded 
on a declaration by a Court of law that such person is “not honest.” Any 
judicial declaration must necessarily be based on evidence, oral or 
documentary. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Appellate Tribunal 
and the impugned judgment by the learned Division Bench of the High 
Court do not refer to any positive evidence on the record to establish either 
that the Sanad of Shahad-ul-Aalmia claimed by the petitioner in his 
nomination papers in 2008 is bogus, forged or fake or that the petitioner 
referred to the same knowingly and deliberately as being equivalent to a 
graduate or postgraduate degree. The issue that the Sanad of Shahad-ul-
Aalmia held by the petitioner was not equivalent to a graduate or 
postgraduate degree has been decided affirmatively by the learned Appellate 
Tribunal and the learned High Court solely on the basis that such fact is 
undisputed by the petitioner. That omission does not constitute an admission 
in order to have evidentiary value. It has been repeatedly held by this Court 
that an admission should be unambiguous, unqualified and specific. [Ref: 
Amir Bibi  vs.  Muhammad Khurshid (2003 SCMR 1261) and Macdonald 
Layton & Co. Pak Ltd.  vs. Uzin Export Import Foreign Trade Co. (1996 
SCMR 696)]. Reference in this regard is also made to Muhammad Siddique  
CPs.2693-2694 of 2018 
4
vs.  Faiz Mai (PLD 2012 SC 211) wherein this Court held that admission must 
be categorical, definite and unambiguous in nature and that a mere non-
denial of a fact in written statement by the defendant, about a fact which is 
not specifically pleaded in the plaint, cannot by stretch of any legal principle 
be construed to be an ‘admission’ in terms of law. As already noted above, 
there is neither any allegation nor any evidence to show that the petitioner’s 
sanad was fake. There is also no evidence on the record to indicate the 
constitutional ingredient of “not honest” in Article 62(1)(f) ibid. Equally, there 
is nothing to show that the petitioner consciously declared his sanad knowing 
that it is not equivalent to a graduate or higher degree. 
3. 
 
Disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution 
entails a life time bar on eligibility to contest elections as held by this Court 
in Sami Ullah Baloch  vs.  Abdul Karim Nousherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405). 
Lack of honesty of the petitioner appears to have been presumed by the 
impugned judgments whereas in the context of Article 62(1)(f) of the 
Constitution, in the case of Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi   vs.   Federation of 
Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 1089) this Court has recognised that the element of 
dishonesty should be present in candidate’s conduct which can be deduced 
from his overt acts that reflect deliberate false statement, cheatful 
involvement in the use of unfair means and dishonesty. Operative para 
therefrom is reproduced herein below: 
“22.  … A person who indulges into unfair means in 
procuring his educational qualifications and is also 
found guilty by the Disciplinary Committee, which is 
the only authority competent to inquire into the 
matters of such allegations against candidates 
appearing in the examination of the said University, 
does not deserve to claim to be an honest, righteous 
CPs.2693-2694 of 2018 
5
or Ameen person. … The spirit with which the words 
sagacious, righteous, non profligate, honest and 
Ameen have been used by the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for the eligibility of the 
candidates contesting the elections of Members of 
National or Provincial Assembly cannot be allowed to 
be frustrated if persons who secure their educational 
documents through unfair means and are found 
guilty of such a condemnable act by [the] competent 
authority  are allowed to be given any entry into the 
doors of National or Provincial Assemblies [of] our 
country. The respondent No.1 not only is found guilty 
of a dishonest or cheatful involvement in the use of 
unfair means in procuring his B.A./degree/results 
from the University of Punjab but also made 
deliberately false statement before this Tribunal. …” 
[emphasis supplied]  
More recently, the element of dishonesty to incur disqualification under 
Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution is examined by this Court in Muhammad 
Hanif Abbasi   vs.   Imran Khan Niazi (PLD 2018 SC 189) and it is held that: 
“100.  … It cannot, therefore, be contended that 
dishonesty is attributed in the said judgment without 
reference to any alleged design, intention, scheme, 
background or impropriety. Consequently, to our 
minds the larger Bench has not expunged the 
requirement of establishing the “dishonesty” of 
conduct of an aspirant or incumbent member of a 
Constitutional 
Legislature 
in 
order 
for 
the 
disqualification 
under 
Article 
62(1)(f) 
of 
the 
Constitution and Section 99(f) of the ROPA to be 
attracted. …” [emphasis supplied]  
CPs.2693-2694 of 2018 
6
The same view is expressed in the judgment of this Court titled Hassan 
Nawaz   vs.   Muhammad Ayub (PLD 2017 SC 70) in para-17 thereof.   
4. 
 
The impugned judgments by the learned High Court have 
applied the bar of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution upon the petitioner 
without giving a finding that his declaration of Sanad of Shahad-ul-Aalmia in 
his nomination papers filed in the year 2008 was a dishonest and deceitful 
action to meet the condition of graduate qualification in order to become 
eligible for contesting the general elections. Apart from lacking such finding, 
the discussion in the impugned judgment is at best based upon a 
presumption and not on any finding or deduction made on the basis of any 
material qualifying as evidence. In the circumstances, the presumption 
drawn by the impugned judgments is conjectural and cannot be made the 
ground for disqualifying the petitioner forever from contesting for or 
holding an office in the Constitutional Legislatures of the country.  
 
 
For the foregoing reasons, both these petitions are converted 
into appeals and allowed and the impugned judgments dated 03.07.2018, 
26.06.2018 and 19.06.2018 passed by the learned High Court, Appellate 
Tribunal and the Returning Officers, respectively, are set aside.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Announced in Court 
on 05.12.2018. 
 
 
 
 
Judge.  
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.  
Irshad Hussain /* 
