IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(REVIEW JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
 
 
C.R.P.NO.218 OF 2013 IN C.P.NO.1033 OF 2013 
(On review of this Court’s order dated 09.07.2013 
passed in C.P.No.1033/2013) 
 
 
Allah Dino Khan Bhayo 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
Election Commission of Pakistan etc. 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the petitioner(s): 
Mr. Wasim Sajjad, Sr. ASC 
 
 
For Federation of 
Pakistan: 
Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Attorney 
General 
 
 
For ECP: 
Mr. M. Arshad, D.G. Law 
 
 
For respondent No.5: 
Raja M. Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
04.02.2020 
 
… 
ORDER 
 
 
 
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.- The question in issue is 
whether a finding dated 03.12.2007 given by the Returning Officer 
against the petitioner in summary proceedings held for scrutiny of 
nomination papers during general elections is final and binding for 
the purpose of permanently disqualifying the petitioner from 
contesting any general election under Article 62(1)(f) of the 
Constitution. The said finding concludes that the equivalence 
certificate issued by Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur about the 
petitioner’s claimed sanad was fake thereby disqualifying the 
petitioner from contesting the election from PS-12 Shikarpur-II in 
2008. As a result, the petitioner stepped out of the elections and did 
C.R.P.No.218 of 2013 in C.P.No.1033 of 2013 
-: 2 :-
not challenge the finding by the Returning Officer. In 2007 Article 
62(1)(f) of the Constitution read as follows:  
“62. A person shall not be qualified to be 
elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-
Shoora (Parliament) unless –  
…………………………………………………………… 
(f) 
he is sagacious, righteous and non-
profligate and honest and ameen” 
 
However, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution amended Article 
62(1)(f) in the year 2010 to incorporate a condition that only a 
declaration, inter alia, of dishonesty given by a court of law could 
disqualify a candidate from contesting elections to the Parliament or 
a Provincial Assembly. The amended Constitutional provision reads 
as under: 
“62. (1) A person shall not be qualified to be 
elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-
Shoora (Parliament) unless –  
……………………………………………………………  
(f) 
he is sagacious, righteous and non-
profligate, honest and ameen, there being no 
declaration to the contrary by a court of law” 
 
2. 
 
The petitioner got elected as a member of the Sindh 
Provincial Assembly in the year 2013. However, on a complaint filed 
against him, the Election Commission of Pakistan (“ECP”) in exercise 
of its powers under Section 103-AA of the Representation of People 
Act, 1976 (“ROPA”) declared vide order dated 11.06.2013 that the 
petitioner was disqualified, inter alia, under Article 62(1)(f) of the 
Constitution to contest in the general election of 2013. The decision 
was based on the aforementioned finding recorded against the 
C.R.P.No.218 of 2013 in C.P.No.1033 of 2013 
-: 3 :-
petitioner by the Returning Officer on 03.12.2007 which had ousted 
him from the corresponding general election held in 2008. The 
petitioner’s challenge to the said finding was ultimately rejected by 
this Court which upheld the order of the ECP vide judgment dated 
09.07.2013 reported as Allah Dino Khan Bhayo Vs. Election 
Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (2013 SCMR 
1655). 
3. 
 
In this review against our judgment dated 09.07.2013, 
the question for our consideration is whether the finding by the 
Returning Officer given during scrutiny of nomination papers 
qualifies as a declaration given by a court of law within the terms of 
Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. This is important because by the 
year 2013 a few judgments by the Supreme Court including Malik 
Iqbal Ahmad Langrial Vs. Jamshed Alam (PLD 2013 SC 179) and 
Abdul Ghafoor Lehri Vs. Returning Officer, PB-29 (2013 SCMR 
1271) had interpreted and held the unamended terms of Article 
62(1)(f) to permanently disqualify a non-compliant candidate.  
4. 
 
Both sides have relied upon the judgment delivered by a 
larger bench of this Court reported as Sami Ullah Baloch and others 
Vs. Abdul Karim Noursherwani and others (PLD 2018 SC 405) to 
advance their rival pleas with respect to the review of our judgment 
dated 09.07.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the 
said authority to assert that the petitioner’s disqualification under 
Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution cannot be permanent unless his 
disability under the said Article is declared by a court of law. 
Conversely, the respondents claim that our above mentioned 
judgment in the Sami Ullah Baloch case has approved our judgment 
dated 09.07.2013 that is now under review before us. The 
C.R.P.No.218 of 2013 in C.P.No.1033 of 2013 
-: 4 :-
endorsement by the larger Bench has fortified the view expressed in 
the judgment under review. In Sami Ullah Baloch’s case this Court 
affirmed the rule that Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution creates a 
permanent bar against contesting the general election. However, the 
impact of the change made by the 18th Amendment in Article 62(1)(f) 
of the Constitution and its legal effect was noted in paragraph 23 of 
the said judgment. This is reproduced as below: 
“23. …In the present context, the conditions 
and qualifications in Article 62(1)(f) of the 
Constitution were retained in toto; and made 
objectively and transparently enforceable by 
the prescription of a judicial declaration for 
precipitating 
the 
loss 
of 
the 
electoral 
qualification specified in the said clause. 
Where a declaration made by a Court of law 
against a candidate for election warrants a 
conclusion 
of 
his 
misrepresentation, 
dishonesty, breach of trust, fraud, cheating, 
lack of fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, 
deception, dishonest misappropriation, etc. to 
be derived from such a verdict, then it stands 
to reason that the consequential incapacity 
imposed upon the candidate for election 
should last for as long as the declaration is in 
force.” 
(emphasis added) 
 
The foregoing view with respect to a judicial declaration is elaborated 
in paragraph 35 of the judgment which holds that: 
“35. It is clear from the findings recorded in 
the afore-noted four judgments by this Court 
that the absence of a time limit for the 
ineligibility of a candidate for election in Article 
62(1)(f) of the Constitution is the basis for 
holding his incapacity to be incurable by efflux 
of time. The reasons recorded in our judgment 
reinforce that conclusion. It may also be noted 
C.R.P.No.218 of 2013 in C.P.No.1033 of 2013 
-: 5 :-
that 
the 
Constitution 
envisages 
other 
situations in which a permanent bar to the 
eligibility of a candidate for election is enforced 
so long as the judgment that records or 
justifies the disability of the candidate remains 
in existence and occupies the field. This view is 
supported by Articles 63 (1)(a) and 63(1)(b) of 
the Constitution that provide disqualifications 
on account of judicial declaration regarding the 
mental 
unfitness 
or 
the 
undischarged 
insolvency of a candidate for election. These 
disabilities also continue so long as the 
adverse judgment is in the field. Finally, it may 
be noted that the prescription by the 18th 
Constitutional Amendment of an adverse 
judicial 
declaration 
to 
precipitate 
the 
ineligibility of a candidate for election has 
provided 
a 
lawful, 
transparent 
and 
fair 
mechanism to a candidate under challenge 
both for contesting and for avoiding the onset 
of an embargo on his eligibility to contest 
elections. The restriction imposed by Article 
62(1)(f) of the Constitution for the eligibility of 
a candidate for election to Parliament serves 
the public need and public interest for honest, 
upright, truthful, trustworthy and prudent 
elected 
representatives. 
The 
judicial 
mechanism 
in 
Article 
62(1)(f) 
of 
the 
Constitution grants a fair opportunity and 
adequate remedy for relief to a candidate under 
challenge to vindicate himself.” 
(emphasis added) 
 
5. 
 
The upshot of the said judgment is that a disqualification 
under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution can only be imposed by or 
under a declaration made by a court of law. By such prescription 
Article 62(1)(f) creates a lawful, transparent and fair mechanism for 
an election candidate to contest an allegation that he is disqualified 
under one or more of the grounds listed in the said Constitutional 
provision. Accordingly, in the case reported as Sardar Yar 
C.R.P.No.218 of 2013 in C.P.No.1033 of 2013 
-: 6 :-
Muhammad Rind Vs. Election Tribunal Balochistan, Quetta and 
others (PLD 2020 SC 137) this Court held that a judicial declaration 
disqualifying a candidate under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution 
must necessarily be based on oral or documentary evidence. In the 
case reported as Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi Vs. Mian Muhammad 
Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2017 SC 265), the learned Judge speaking for the 
majority elaborated that even an Election Tribunal can only 
disqualify a candidate when its declaration is issued on the basis of 
evidence before it. Such a requirement is implicit in Article 10A of the 
Constitution which makes both due process and fair trial a 
fundamental 
right 
in 
lawful 
judicial 
proceedings. 
Thus 
the 
determination of a dispute relating to a right or liability, the recording 
of evidence including the right of cross-examination, a hearing of the 
arguments of the parties and a reasoned judgment are essential 
attributes of a court of law (ref: Tariq Transport Co., Lahore Vs. 
Sargodha Bhera Bus Service (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 437) and Mollah 
Ejahar Ali vs Government of East Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 173).  
6.  
 
It is evident that the summary finding given by the 
Returning Officer against the review petitioner in the year 2007 did 
not comply with the requirement laid out in Article 62(1)(f) of the 
Constitution as amended in the year 2010, namely a declaration by a 
court of law. This is because a Returning Officer does not record 
evidence in his proceedings which are summary in nature. His 
finding, unless set aside, is therefore valid only for the corresponding 
election. In these circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata would 
also be inapplicable to the finding of the Returning Officer because 
although the said finding remained unchallenged, the same was 
given without the recording of evidence including the right of cross-
examination. His finding thus lacked the attributes of a declaration  
C.R.P.No.218 of 2013 in C.P.No.1033 of 2013 
-: 7 :-
given by a court of law. (ref: Roshan Ali Buriro Vs. Syed Murad Ali 
Shah (2019 SCMR 1939). Both these conditions: one that evidence is 
recorded before a court of law and two, that a finding given by such 
court is based on the evidence on record, are essential for a finding 
with binding effect to be governed by res judicata (ref: Section 11 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Muhammad Saleem Ullah Vs. 
Additional District Judge, Gujranwala (PLD 2005 SC 511).  
7.  
 
According to settled law, the amended provision of Article 
62(1)(f) is effective prospectively from the date of its enforcement. This 
provision governs all disqualification claims that arise after its 
promulgation in the year 2010. In the present case, disqualification 
of the petitioner was sought in the general election held in 2013 when 
a declaration by a court of law was necessary to attract the 
Constitutional disqualification. On the other hand, the finding given 
by the Returning Officer in the present case was rendered in 2007 
prior to the amendment in Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. Such a 
finding was not a verdict given after a trial by a court of law; namely, 
for the purposes of this case, an Election Tribunal or a Court of 
plenary jurisdiction. Since the forum of the Returning Officer lacks 
the attributes of a court of law therefore the electoral disqualification 
imposed on the review petitioner under Article 62(1)(f) of the 
Constitution ceased to be effective after the 18th Amendment. The 
said impact of the 18th Amendment went unnoticed in our judgment 
under review dated 09.07.2013 thereby constituting an error 
apparent on the fact of the record.     
8. 
 
Having said that, a finding of dishonesty remains an 
ignoble impediment against the election of the petitioner. Therefore, it 
must be overcome by the petitioner if at any stage in the future he 
wishes to contest elections. An allegation of dishonesty based on the 
certificate of Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur rather than the 
C.R.P.No.218 of 2013 in C.P.No.1033 of 2013 
-: 8 :-
finding of the Returning Officer dated 03.12.2007, may still be 
invoked against the petitioner. This would involve the allegation that 
the petitioner committed forgery in the year 2007 by falsely claiming 
his educational qualification to be equivalent to a graduation degree. 
As this allegation remains unchallenged and unrebutted by the 
petitioner till date, any aggrieved party can in future object before the 
competent forum that dishonesty of the petitioner is apparent from 
the University’s finding to the effect that he relied on a fake 
equivalence certificate for his sanad issued by a madrassa.  
9. 
 
In view of the foregoing, this review petition is allowed 
and the observation that the petitioner is disqualified under Article 
62(1)(f) of the Constitution in the circumstances of the case is 
recalled. 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
4th of February, 2020 
Approved for reporting 
Waqas Naseer/Meher LC 
