IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
Present: 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.  
 
 
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.669-L of 2013 
[Direct appeal under section 67(3) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1976 (Act 
No.LXXXV of 1976) against the judgment dated 
05.04.2013 
passed 
in 
Election 
Petition 
No.104/2008 by the learned Election Tribunal, 
Lahore] 
 
Malik Umar Aslam 
…Appellant 
Versus 
Mrs. Sumaira Malik, etc. 
…Respondent (s) 
 
For the appellants(s):  
Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Waqar Rana, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
 
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mobeen ud Din Qazi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by: 
 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Saad Buttar, Adv. 
 
Respondent No.2 & 3:  
Nemo 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
09.10.2013 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.— Instant direct appeal 
has been filed under section 67(3) of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1976 (ROPA) against the judgment dated 05.04.2013 passed by 
the Election Tribunal, Lahore, whereby Election Petition No.104 of 
2008 filed by the present Appellant was dismissed. 
2. 
  
Precisely stating facts of the case are that the Appellant 
and Respondent No.1 along with other candidates contested the 
CA 669-L/13 
2 
election of National Assembly from NA-69 (Khushab-I) in the General 
Elections held on 18.02.2008 in which Respondent No.1 was declared 
returned candidate with 61076 whereas the Appellant was the runner-
up having secured 60413 votes. The Appellant challenged the said 
election through Election Petition No.104 of 2008 under section 52 of 
ROPA on the ground that various provisions of law, particularly section 
39 of ROPA, were violated and that the BA degree of Respondent No.1 
was bogus. It was alleged in the election petition that Respondent 
No.1 colluded with government and election officials for the 
perpetration of countless election offences and grave violations of law, 
which materially and substantially affected the entire election process.  
Such malpractice adopted by Respondent No.1 rendered the entire 
election process void for not being just, free and fair. It was further 
alleged that on the polling day bogus votes were cast in a majority of 
polling stations. Moreover, it was asserted that the concerned 
Returning Officer (RO), without giving notice to contesting candidates 
or their polling agents, in collusion with Respondent No.1 manipulated 
the entire record. Allegedly, the RO broke open the packets sent by 
the Presiding Officers and replaced/destroyed/changed the ballot 
papers, resultantly, the rejected votes increased from 220 to 1061. 
Finally, it was alleged that the BA degree of Respondent No.1 was 
bogus as she completed her Intermediate in 1981 but did not obtain a 
BA degree until 2002, when she obtained forged and fabricated BA 
degree from the University of the Punjab. He made following prayer in 
petition:- 
“In view of the aforementioned facts and submissions, it is most 
respectfully prayed that the election of the Respondent No.1 is 
void and the petitioner be declared as the successfully returned 
CA 669-L/13 
3 
Candidates from NA-69, Khushab-I, in the national election 
conducted on 18.02.2008.”  
3. 
  
Respondent No.1 was the only respondent who contested 
the election petition. Respondent No.1 in her reply raised various legal 
and factual defences to controvert all the allegations levelled against 
her. Learned Election Tribunal on 11.05.2010 formulated the following 
points:- 
(i) 
Whether in the facts and circumstances given in the election 
petition, the election of NA-69 is void? 
(ii) 
Whether the election petition is not maintainable and has been 
instituted in violation of the provisions of the Representation of 
Peoples, Act, 1976? 
4. 
  
In the meantime, on 17.09.2008, Respondent No.1 filed 
CMA No.2 of 2008 under section 63 of ROPA read with section 151 CPC 
before the Election Tribunal praying therein that the petition may be 
dismissed as the provisions of section 55 of ROPA had not been 
complied with while instituting the same, inasmuch as the annexures 
appended with the petition had not been verified and attested in the 
manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Election 
Tribunal vide order dated 24.04.2009 dismissed the said CMA and 
CPLA No.1322 of 2009 filed against the said order was also dismissed 
as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2010.  
5. 
  
The Appellant produced evidence which was also rebutted 
by Respondent No.1. The Tribunal after examining the evidence 
produced before it, dismissed the election petition vide impugned 
judgment which the Appellant has challenged before this Court 
through the instant appeal.  
CA 669-L/13 
4 
6. 
  
Mr. Hamid Khan, learned counsel for the Appellant, placed 
on record following formulations:- 
“1. 
That from the evidence on record, it is obvious that the 
degree of B.A. has not been obtained by the Respondent No.1 in 
the ordinary course. 
 
She passed her F.A. in 1981 and did not attempt B.A 
examination until 2002. 
 
B.A. in April 2002 was obviously attempted in desperation 
to qualify for contesting elections for MNA in the 
forthcoming general elections of 2002. 
 
In such circumstance, particularly, when she was not in 
touch with the formal education for 20 years, it is 
plausible that another lady was hired to appear in the 
examination for her. 
2. 
That impersonation of Respondent No.1 by another lady is 
established from the following evidence: 
(I) 
Respondent No.1 does not remember the subjects 
in which she appeared in the first instance and then 
corrects herself. 
 
She does not remember that there was any 
compulsory paper other than English; 
 
She 
does 
not 
remember 
the 
location 
of 
examination centers in Mustafaabad and Lahore 
Cantt. and as to how many papers were taken at 
what examination centre; 
 
She does not remember prescribed syllabus of the 
English papers and as to what she studied for the 
examination. She does not remember how many 
questions were to be attempted or whether those 
questions referred to poetry, dram, prose etc; 
 
She could not recall whether Pak Studies was a 
compulsory subject and how many parts were 
there in such paper. 
 
She could not recall the syllabus of history paper 
and what she studied for that paper; 
(II) 
It is obvious from the photographs of the lady on 
the admission for and Roll No. slip that person in these 
photographs is different from Respondent No.1 as 
CA 669-L/13 
5 
appears from her photograph on ID Card application for 
obtaining ID Card, computerized ID Card (CNIC), election 
poster and news papers clipping: 
 
The photograph on Admission form and Roll No. 
Slip is of a lady in her early twenties whereas the 
Respondent No.1 in 2002 is admittedly in her late 
thirties (38 to 39 years of age); 
 
The features of the two faces are different. The 
lady on the admission form and roll No.slip were 
glasses. On no photograph of the Respondent No.1 
she is wearing glasses. 
(III) The signatures on the Admission Form are totally 
different from signatures of the respondent No.1 as seen 
from her specimen signatures, her ID Card of 21.08.2002 
her computerized ID Card. The letters and flow of the two 
set of signatures are different even to the naked eye.  
3. 
The so called enquiry and its findings are evidently fake, 
false and manipulated in order to cover up the impersonation. 
 
There is no notice of proceedings of enquiry for 11-
12-2002 
as 
is 
evident 
from 
the 
report 
of 
10.12.2002; 
 
She does not seem to have appeared before any 
enquiry committee and the writing and signatures 
appears to have been procured because she does 
not remember the number of committee members, 
who was its head, what were their designations, 
what is the date of appearance before the 
committee and who dictated her writing. 
 
Her husband at the given time held a very 
important 
position 
being 
Additional 
Secretary 
(Schools) Department of Education, Government of 
Punjab and the University of Punjab is controlled by 
the 
Education 
Department 
of 
the 
Punjab 
Government (rules of Business of the Government 
of Punjab Education Department, para2). Thus her 
husband was in a position to have his way with 
university officials who were dependent on him and 
he could manipulate matter in the university and 
actually did so.  
CA 669-L/13 
6 
 
The hurried manner of holding an enquiry if at all, 
producing reports, one on 10.12.2002, the other on 
12.12.2002 obviously with an intent to cover up 
the impersonation would clearly establish an 
influential hand behind the whole scheme of cover 
up. Even the order of V.C. to put up documents 
before him was not complied with.  
 
The court can presume above course of events and 
human conduct in relation to the facts of present 
case under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 
1984.  
4. 
It is established from the evidence and the record that 
the appellant was never associated with the so called enquiry or 
its proceedings. This fact is critical in views of the judgment of 
the Election Tribunal in which reliance is placed heavily on these 
so called enquiry/enquires and report/reports. 
 
Whatever enquiry was held on 11.12.2002, the 
Appellant was not in picture because he applied for 
the first time on 16.1.2003 and the second time on 
28.1.2002; 
 
At no place in the so called enquiry proceedings the 
Appellant has been marked present. 
 
It is not even alleged in the statement of PW 5 
Muhammad 
Rauf 
Nawaz, 
Deputy 
controller 
(Examination), who appeared for the Punjab 
University, that Appellant participated in any such 
enquiry. 
5. 
That the degree of B.A. claimed by the Respondent No.1 
has been proved to have been a result of impersonation, fraud 
and falsehood and therefore such a person is not qualified to 
contest for member of Parliament not being sagacious, 
righteous, non profligate, honest and amen as ordained by 
Article 62(i)(f) of the Constitution of Pakistan. 
 
It has been held by this Honourable Court that 
those 
making 
false 
declarations 
about 
their 
qualifications in the nomination papers are hit by 
the Article 62(i)(f) of the Constitution. 
 
Reference in this behalf is made to the following 
authorities: 
CA 669-L/13 
7 
(I) 
Abdul Ghafoor Lehri Vs Returning Officer, 
2013 SCMR 1271 
(II) 
Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial Vs Jamshed 
Alam, PLd 2013 SC 179 
(III) Mudassar Qayyum Vs Ch. Bilal Ijaz, 2011 
SCMR 80” 
7. 
  
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Sr. ASC appearing on 
behalf of Respondent No.1 placed on record following formulations:- 
(1) 
As the Honorable Supreme Court is exercising statutory 
jurisdiction under section 67 of the Representation of 
People Act thus can pass an order which is within the 
powers of the Tribunal and not beyond the mandate of 
the Law; 
(2) 
That the Appellant has come with unclean hands, and also 
perjured himself before the Tribunal; 
(3)  
That the Honorable Supreme Court may kindly not go 
behind the orders passed by the competent authority in 
2003, which has attained finality;  
(4) 
That the reports of the University of Punjab are past 
closed transactions and cannot be reopened after a lapse 
of 10 years. 
(5) 
That the entire exercise is with regard to the 2008 
elections, whereas new elections were held in 2013 and 
the Appellant has already filed an Election Petition on the 
same ground; 
(6) 
That it is a classic case of harassment, intimidation and 
abuse of the process of the court by Appellant even 
though he lost three elections i.e. 2002, 2008 and 2013 
to the respondent, and is harassing the Respondent since 
then, which means that Appellant desires to win the 
elections through court orders and not by votes. The 
Honorable Supreme Court may never countenance such 
conduct.” 
8. 
 
It is to be noted that the Appellant has been challenging 
the success of  Respondent No.1 in the General Elections from 2002 to 
onward. The first chapter in this series of bilateral election disputes 
CA 669-L/13 
8 
began with Respondent No. 1’s success in the General Elections held 
on 10.10.2002 from the Constituency NA-69 (Khushab-I). The 
Appellant challenged the said election by submitting an election 
petition under section 52 of ROPA on 02.12.2002, which was 
forwarded to the Election Tribunal for adjudication. On the objection of 
Respondent No. 1, the petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 
2.10.2003 passed in Election Petition No. 101/2002 for want of 
compliance with the verification requirements mandated by section 
55(3) of ROPA.  The Appellant proceeded to file Civil Appeal 
No.1716/2003 before this Court, which was decided on 19.12.2006 
and reported as Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik (PLD 2007 SC 
362). It is to be noted that in the Election Petition, the Appellant 
specifically levelled the allegation that Respondent No.1 was not a 
graduate and had procured a fake degree from the University of the 
Punjab in order to overcome the bar contained in Article 8-A of the 
Conduct of General Elections Order, 2002 and section 99(cc) of ROPA.  
9. 
 
As it has been noted hereinabove the Appellant lost in the 
General Elections held on 18.02.2008 and Respondent No.1 was 
declared returned. Therefore, towards the month of April, 2008, the 
Appellant filed Election Petition No.104/2008, which was initially 
entrusted to Mr. Justice M. Bilal Khan Judge/Election Tribunal who 
heard the petition from 30.04.2008 to 17.11.2008 when for personal 
reasons he declined to hear this case and forwarded it to the Chief 
Election Commissioner of Pakistan for its entrustment to any other 
Election Tribunal. It seems that the election petition was entrusted to 
Mr. 
Justice 
Ali 
Akbar 
Qureshi, 
Judge/Election 
Tribunal, 
who 
commenced proceedings from 17.12.2008 to 17.07.2009. Thereafter, 
CA 669-L/13 
9 
the case was heard by Mr. Justice Manzoor Malik and Mr. Justice Nasir 
Saeed Sheikh on different dates who on 11.06.2010 in view of the 
following observations forwarded the case to the Election Commission 
of Pakistan:- 
“4. 
The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has argued 
that he has no objection to the production of the election result 
sheets prepared by the Polling Officer, but seriously takes 
exception to the use of this method for effecting recounting of 
the ballot papers. 
5. 
This objection raised by the learned counsel for the 
respondent No.1 that the election petitioner is creating a 
situation for recounting of the entire ballot papers of 
Constituency NA069 is, on the face of it, premature at this 
stage. However, this situation can be taken care of by the 
present in the bags sealed by the Polling Officer of each Polling 
Station be first produced for comparison, if necessary, with the 
election result sheets prepared by the returning Officer. 
6. 
With this observation and direction, I dispose of this CM 
No.4 of 2010 and allow the record of Constituency NA-69 to be 
brought before the Commission with full security by the 
Registrar of the Election Commission. The abovementioned 
observation recorded by this Tribunal be kept in consideration 
by the Commission while recording the statement of the 
Returning Officer and of opening the bags of the Polling Stations 
of Constituency NA-69. It is however clarified that in case some 
serious objection is felt by the Commission that in order to 
verify the correctness of any of the result sheets prepared by 
the Polling Officer, the examination of the ballet papers or of the 
rejected ballet papers or of the tendered ballet papers is 
CA 669-L/13 
10
necessary, the Commission may for reasons recorded order that 
that Commission shall not allow the opening of the ballet papers 
generally and will  only stick to the comparison of the election 
sheet results with the result sheets prepared by the Returning 
Officer. CM No.4 of 2010 stands disposed of.” 
10. 
 
The Election Commission again entrusted this case on 
7.7.2010 to Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed, Judge/Election Tribunal (as 
he then was) who also declined to hear the case for personal reasons 
as is evident from the order dated 14.07.2010. Accordingly, the case 
was entrusted to Mr. Justice Sh. Najam-ul-Hassan Judge/Election 
Tribunal who commenced hearing from 24.08.2010 and on 7.2.2011. 
He also declined to hear the case due to personal reasons, thus the 
case was sent to Chief Election Commissioner for its entrustment to 
any other Election Tribunal. Accordingly, on 15.03.2011 Mr. Justice 
Ejaz-ul-Ahsan Judge/Election Tribunal commenced the hearing and 
finally dismissed the petition vide impugned judgment dated 
04.05.2013 about five weeks before the polling of the next General 
Elections, 2013.  
11. 
 
The purpose of noting the above facts is that under the 
provisions of section 67(1A) of ROPA, the decision of election petition 
is required to be taken within four months from its receipt, which are 
reproduced hereinbelow:- 
67. 
(1) 
……… 
(1A) The Election Tribunal shall proceed with the trial of 
the election petition on day to day basis and no 
adjournment shall be granted to any party for more than 
seven days and that too on payment of costs as the 
Tribunal may determine} and the decision thereof shall be 
taken within four months from its receipt: 
CA 669-L/13 
11
Provided that where a petition is not decided within four 
months, further adjournment sought by any party shall be 
granted only on payment of special cost of ten thousand 
rupees per adjournment and adjournment shall not be 
granted for more than three days: 
Provided further that if the Tribunal itself adjourns it shall 
record reasons for such adjournment:  
Provided also that where delay in the proceedings is 
occasioned by any act or omission of a returned candidate 
or any other person acting on his behalf, the Tribunal 
itself, or on application of the aggrieved party, shall after 
issuance the show cause notice to the returned candidate, 
within fifteen days from the date of show cause notice may 
order that the returned candidate has ceased to perform 
the functions of his office either till the conclusion of the 
proceedings or for such period as the Tribunal may direct. 
12. 
 
It has been noticed that not only in the instant case but in 
so many other identical cases pertaining to elections, timely decisions 
are not taken by the Election Tribunals; because, inter alia, Election 
Tribunals are ordinarily presided by learned Judges of the High Courts 
who remain unable to conclude matters expeditiously on account of 
their other judicial commitments, or because of delaying tactics 
employed by respondents who, having been declared as returned 
candidates, enjoy the status of Member of the National or Provincial 
Assembly. We are of the considered opinion that, as held by this Court 
in Muhammad Usman Achakzai v. Election Tribunal Balochistan (PLD 
2010 SC 943), such delays in disposal of election petitions before the 
Tribunal in fact deprives a large number of electors of the constituency 
to have their due representation in the elected Houses, particularly in 
those matters where a whole term has been enjoyed by a winning 
candidate, who may later turn out to be disqualified on any count. 
CA 669-L/13 
12
Thus, delay causes the people of constituency to be represented by a 
person who is not duly elected. This clearly negates the principle of 
democratic system of Government. There is wisdom in fixing the 
period for decision of such cases, namely, that there should be no 
uncertainty for the persons, who have been elected or who have 
challenged the election before the Tribunal or the Court and after 
expeditious disposal of the same. They should consume all their 
energies for the welfare of the people whom they represent, instead of 
wasting time in pursuing such matters before the Courts. This principle 
was reaffirmed by this Court in Workers’ Party Pakistan v. Federation 
of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 681). Furthermore, in the case of 
Muhammad Khan Junejo v. Fida Hussain Dero (PLD 2004 SC 452) this 
Court held that it is a mandatory requirement of ROPA that Election 
Tribunal shall proceed with the trial of the election petition on day-to-
day basis and the decision thereof shall be taken within four months 
from its receipt as provided under section 67(1A) ibid. This Court 
further held that the contention of the Appellant in that case that fair 
hearing was not afforded to him was without merit and in fact spoke 
volumes of the appellant’s propensity to prolong litigation at any cost.  
13. 
 
In light of the aforementioned facts, it is clear that a legal 
duty has been cast upon the Election Tribunal to reach a conclusion 
expeditiously by following stringent/coercive measures of imposing a 
cost and assigning the reasons if cases are adjourned by the Tribunal. 
To this end the Tribunal is even empowered to declare that a returned 
candidate who is delaying the proceedings of the Tribunal ceases to be 
a member of the Parliament/Provincial Assembly, either till the 
CA 669-L/13 
13
conclusion of the proceedings or for such period as the Tribunal may 
direct.  
14. 
 
In this vein, it is pertinent to note that the provisions of 
section 67(1A) are mandatory in nature. This is evident as the said 
section contains penal consequences for taking adjournments and 
failing to decide an election petition within four months. In this regard 
it is instructive to have recourse to the decision of this Court in the 
case of Maulana Nur-ul-Haq v. Ibrahim Khalili (2000 SCMR 1305), 
wherein it was held that:-  
“7. ... No doubt there exists no faultless acid test or a 
universal rule for determining whether a provision of law is 
mandatory or directory and such determination by and 
large depends upon the intention of Legislature and the 
language in which the provision is couched but it is by now 
firmly settled that where the consequence of failure to 
comply with the provision is not mentioned the provision is 
directory 
and 
where 
the 
consequence is 
expressly 
mentioned the provision is mandatory. ...” 
In the case of Ghulam Hussain v. Jamshed Ali (2001 SCMR 1001) this 
Court held as under:- 
“13. It is an established principle of law that where the 
Legislature has  provided a penalty/consequences for the 
non-compliance, the said provision would be mandatory in 
nature and where such consequences are not provided it 
would be termed as directory...” 
Similarly, in the case of Malik Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik (PLD 2007 
SC 362) it was held as under:- 
“10. ... …the Court is always empowered to ensure that 
the law under which proceedings have been initiated 
CA 669-L/13 
14
before it stands complied with fully particularly in the cases 
where non-compliance of mandatory provision prescribes a 
penalty... ...” 
 
Furthermore, in the matter of: HUMAN RIGHTS CASES NOS.4668 OF 
2006, 1111 OF 2007 and 15283-G of 2010 (PLD 2010 SC 759). 
Relevant extract therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:- 
“12. … … It is to be noted that non-adherence to 
legislative provisions other than the Constitution is 
permissible, 
provided 
it 
does 
not 
entail 
penal 
consequences 
as 
there 
are 
two 
types 
of 
statutes/legislation, i.e. mandatory and directory. As far as 
mandatory provision of law is concerned, same is required 
to be enforced strictly without interpreting/construing it in 
any manner liberally. … …” 
15. 
 
In light of the aforementioned case-law, it is abundantly 
clear that section 67(1A) is a mandatory provision of law that entails 
penal consequences for non-compliance. Therefore, the Learned 
Election Tribunal below failed to penalise Respondent No. 1 for 
repeatedly delaying the proceedings. 
 
16. 
 
Moving now to the merits of the Appeal, it is pertinent to 
recap that the election petition No.104/2008 challenged the success of 
Respondent No.1 as a member of National Assembly on the alleged 
commission of corrupt and illegal acts, etc., by and on behalf of 
Respondent No.1 prior to as well as on the date of polling. In her 
reply, Respondent No.1 raised various legal and factual defences. 
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 contended 
that during the hearing of the election petition, the Appellant 
abandoned every ground of attack except pleading that the election of 
CA 669-L/13 
15
respondent No.1 was liable to be declared void because she had 
procured a fabricated BA degree from University of the Punjab. 
Moreover, according to him, the pleadings of the Appellant  never 
mentioned that Respondent No. 1 obtained the said degree as a result 
of impersonation. He explained that no fresh plea is allowed to be 
introduced without seeking amendments under section 62(3) of ROPA. 
If such amendment has not been made, the petition deserves to be 
dismissed on this sole ground as well.  
 17.  
In response, learned counsel for the Appellant  contended 
that this very issue was raised before the Election Tribunal wherein the 
Appellant was not only allowed to raise this plea but permission was 
also accorded to produce the evidence, for which Respondent No.1 
also had no objection as is evident from the perusal of the impugned 
judgment. A careful perusal of the proceedings supports the contention 
raised by the Appellant’s counsel as after examining the record the 
learned Tribunal in the circumstances observed as under:- 
“Therefore, the only question that requires determination 
by the Tribunal is as follows:- 
“Whether respondent No.1 procured a fabricated degree 
of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) from the University of Punjab by 
arranging for some other lady to sit for the examination 
in her place, and hence her election is liable to be 
declared to be void.” 
 
The answer to above question will have direct bearing in 
deciding issue No.1 ibid.” 
Thus, objection raised by learned counsel for respondent being without 
substance needs no further discussion.  
18. 
 
Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 also emphasized that 
under section 67 of the ROPA this Court can pass the order, which is 
within the powers of the Tribunal and not beyond mandate of the law. 
CA 669-L/13 
16
Suffice to say, the instant appeal is in continuation of proceedings 
which have been dealt with by the Election Tribunal under section 52 
of the ROPA as appeal has been filed to challenge the order of the 
Tribunal, which is based on evidence produced before it. According to 
him, the question of granting relief to the parties in respect of 
genuineness or otherwise of the degree is concerned depends upon the 
final judgment. However, the Court cannot travel beyond the powers 
conferred upon it by the law.  
19. 
 
Learned counsel had a feel about exercising the jurisdiction 
of this Court under different constitutional provisions like 185(1), 
185(2) and 185(3). We are of the opinion that appeal is a statutory 
right that can only be exercised if the Statute has provided so as a 
matter of right. Section 96 of CPC can be cited for reference, which 
provides that an appeal lies against all decrees passed by a court in 
the exercise of original civil jurisdiction, except consent decree, and 
decree passed in suit filed under section (9) of the Specific Relief Act, 
1877, and a final decree, the preliminary decree of which is not 
challenged. Appeal also lies against an order if so provided for by 
section 104 or Order XLIII CPC. In the same breath learned counsel 
argued that this Court may not go beyond the orders of the competent 
authority of University of the Punjab which were passed in 2003, and 
validity of BA degree of Respondent No.1 has attained finality. He has 
made reference to the decision dated 10.12.2002 of the Committee of 
the University of Punjab in the proceedings captioned as “Reference 
Civil Suit from Mr. Muhammad Afzal son of Muhammad Din Versus Vice 
Chancellor/controller of Examination Against Mrs. Samaira Malik Tahir” 
and the said Committee meeting held on 12.12.2002 which has been 
CA 669-L/13 
17
taken in continuation of the Order noted hereinabove and then the 
decision of the same dated 10.02.2003.  
20. 
 
Learned counsel for the Appellant stated that Election 
Tribunal inter alia has based its decision on the documents on record. 
Therefore, according to him, if a written decision has been taken by 
the Election Tribunal by misreading any of these documents, this Court 
while disposing of the appeal is not precluded to examine the evidence 
as a whole and not base its findings on the conclusion, which have 
been drawn illegally by a forum without appreciating evidence 
according to law. The Appellant had raised a dispute since filing of 
earlier election petition on 12.12.2002 inter alia on the ground that 
Respondent No.1 was not a graduate and in order to overcome the bar 
contained in Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Election Order and 
section 99(cc) of ROPA she had managed to procure fake and 
fabricated degree from the University of the Punjab but this question 
had never been adjudicated upon as the election petition, referred to 
hereinabove, which culminated in dismissal of petition for non-
compliance of the mandatory requirement of section 55(3) of ROPA on 
2.10.2003 and appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed vide 
judgment passed in  Malik Umar Aslam’s case (supra). Again in the 
petition, which has given rise to instant appeal, as it has been noted 
hereinabove, the Election Tribunal after hearing the parties had also 
framed question to the effect whether respondent procured fabricated 
degree of BA etc.  
21. 
 
It may not be out of context to note that judicial 
adjudication has to be undertaken by a forum duly authorized to 
CA 669-L/13 
18
exercise judicial powers and pronounce the judgment between the 
parties as in the instant case Election Tribunal vide judgment dated 
05.04.2013 had pronounced a judgment holding BA degree of 
Respondent No.1 to be valid and this decision is under examination in 
appeal before this Court. Therefore, subject to its decision it would not 
be possible to say that past and closed issue is not required to be 
adjudicated upon. Before deciding the case finally, the argument of the 
learned counsel of Respondent No.1 in this behalf seems to be 
premature. In absence of final adjudication the orders passed by the 
competent authority of the University in 2003 cannot be considered to 
have attained the finality.  
22. 
 
At this juncture it is pertinent to note that domestic 
tribunals like Inquiry Committee, Departmental Committee constituted 
statutorily by the Universities to probe the genuineness or otherwise of 
a degree are bound by the principles of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. 
Reference in this behalf may be made to the case of Rahat Naseem 
Malik v. President of Pakistan [2003 PLC (C.S.) 759], wherein this 
Court held at Para. 9 that “...if an Inquiry Officer on the basis of 
material placed before it assesses/estimates that the point which is 
required to be determined has been established and if his such 
verdict/opinion is acceptable to a prudent man it could be deemed 
under Article 2(d) of Qanun-e-Shahhadat Order, 1984 that fact has 
been proved accordingly.” In the same Para., it was also held that 
“…opinion rendered by an Inquiry Officer is not a final verdict to decide 
the fate of the parties arrayed before it for determination of a 
particular/specific question.” 
CA 669-L/13 
19
23. 
 
Thus, from the above discussion we are of the opinion that 
adjudication in appeal proceedings by this Court at the apex level is 
distinct and different from the decision/findings of domestic Tribunals, 
not because of hierarchy but because of the statutory powers available 
to an appellate Court under section 67 of ROPA. Adjudication of an 
issue, which is a continuous bone of contention between the parties, 
cannot be postponed because of lapse of a period of 10 years as it has 
been suggested by the Respondent No.1’s learned counsel. More 
particularly, a candidate has to prove his credentials in terms of both 
Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution to establish that no 
objection/attack is actionable against him or her; both before as well 
as after entering the Parliament or Provincial Assembly. In a number 
of cases, the Court has intervened in the election of such candidates 
who were found to be disqualified after having been elected the 
members of the Parliament and thereby they were de-notified. 
Reference in his behalf may be made to the cases of Syed Mehmood 
Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 1089) and 
Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui v. Federation  of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 
774). In the latter case, former Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza 
Gillani was found guilty of Contempt of Court by a 7-member Bench of 
this Court, as a result whereof he was sentenced, and subsequent 
thereto, on a number of petitions filed by politicians, including one 
filed by Mr. Imran Khan, Chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, 
question of the then Prime Minister’s disqualification was examined 
and he was de-notified to hold the office of Member of National 
Assembly forthwith, with all its consequences.  
CA 669-L/13 
20
24. 
 
Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 stated that entire 
exercise is with regard to 2008 elections whereas new elections were 
held in 2013 and Appellant filed election petition on the same ground. 
It may be seen that when the Court was hearing the case, it was 
brought to our notice that election petition wherein appellant Umar 
Aslam Khan had challenged the election held on 11.05.2013. And said 
petition has been dismissed for violating mandatory provision of 
section 55(3) of ROPA as it has been observed in the order of Election 
Tribunal, Faisalabad dated 1.10.2013. Copy of the same, after 
procuring from the Tribunal, has been placed on record. Having said 
so, it is to be noted that in view of the above discussion instant matter 
relates to election of 2008, decision of which has been taken on 
05.04.2013 by the Election Tribunal on the petition of Appellant. In 
view of the above discussion, the instant case involves more than the 
mere issue of maintainability of the appeal. Rather, the instant case 
also involves the question of the power of the Court to hear the appeal 
and finally dispose of the issues therein. Thus, the appeal would not 
become infructuous with the flux of time as findings so recorded by the 
Election Tribunal are based on the material produced before it, 
therefore, adjudication has to take place. 
25. 
 
Moving further, it may be observed that according to 
learned counsel for the Appellant, the Election Tribunal has based its 
finding on the fact that Respondent No.1 had obtained BA degree in 
the ordinary course. He has referred to evidence, which has been 
relied upon by the Tribunal. According to him, the conclusion of the 
Tribunal is not based on correct appreciation of evidence. On the other 
hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that the 
CA 669-L/13 
21
Committee constituted by the University had independent jurisdiction 
and in view of evidence so brought on record a correct decision was 
arrived at; therefore, no interference is called for. 
26. 
 
It is to be seen that the learned Tribunal, after having 
gone through one para of the petition, in which the allegation of 
fabricated degree has been levelled against Respondent No.1, 
proceeded to note that record does indicate that Respondent No.1 
actually sat herself in the BA examination, whereas, by the Appellant 
the precise allegation against Respondent No.1 was that in absence of 
having her photographs on the application form or registration record 
as well as record of examination, she procured a fake and bogus 
degree, and further it was alleged that if there is any record with the 
University, same was falsely created under direct and unlawful 
influence of the Respondent No.1’s husband. It may be noted that at 
the time of submission of application form for examination of BA in the 
University of Punjab, her husband namely Malik Tahir Sarfraz, was 
Additional Secretary Schools and had attested her alleged admission 
form.  In reply, Respondent No.1 denied the allegation as false and her 
stand was that she was bona fide graduate and the allegation was 
highly degrading and vague. However, learned Tribunal referred to the 
statement 
of 
Muhammad 
Rauf 
Nawaz, 
Deputy 
Controller 
(Examination) who appeared as PW-5, and also discussed the details 
of the record, including the statement of Muhammad Rauf Nawaz and 
details of the document, which according to him was admittedly part of 
the record of University of Punjab. It is important to note that the 
Tribunal also observed that “what is important to note is that the 
allegation of impersonation was levelled by the petitioner against 
CA 669-L/13 
22
Respondent No.1 for the first time in the year 2002 by way of an 
application before the University of the Punjab. The said charges were 
not proved and after due inquiry in which the both parties participated, 
the degree of Respondent No.1 was found to be valid and the charge 
of impersonation was found to be baseless.” Learned Tribunal has 
relied upon the findings of the Committee of the University of the 
Punjab comprising:- 
(a) 
Sh. Rehmat, Assistant Controller-II; 
(b) 
Muhammad 
Akram 
Khan, 
Deputy 
Controller, 
(Examination); 
(c) 
Muhammad 
Akram 
Khan, 
Deputy 
Controller 
(Secretary). 
The Committee examined Respondent No.1’s admission form, result 
notification, award list, attendance chart, answer books, roll number 
slips, national identity card, her specimen signatures, handwriting 
which was compared with the handwriting on the answer books. The 
Committee found the handwriting on the specimen and the 
handwriting in the answer books as identical and according to the 
observation/finding so recorded by it, the Appellant on his appearance 
produced three documents namely (1) 
Election 
Poster 
with 
the 
photograph of respondent No.1 (2) Photocopy of the Admission form 
and (3) a photograph of respondent No.1 published in a newspaper. 
The report of the Committee contains the following observations:- 
(a) 
National Identity Card. Its copy was not attached 
with the Admission Form. It was inspected in original 
and photocopy retained. Same was issued on 
21.08.2002. 
CA 669-L/13 
23
(b) 
Specimen handwriting obtained, compared with the 
handwriting of the candidate’s Answer Books. The 
handwriting was found similar.  
(c) 
Photographs on the roll No Slip, Admission Form 
compared with the photo of the candidate’s NIC and 
candidate herself & found similar. 
(d) 
Specimen signature of the candidate obtained & 
compared with the one on NIC, SF 16 and found 
similar. 
The statements of Appellant and Respondent No.1 were also recorded 
who supported  their respective stances taken before the Court.  
27. 
 
It is important to note that Learned Counsel for 
Respondent No.1 pointed out that a manual Identity Card was issued 
to Respondent No.1 bearing No.128-63-180716. Subsequently, she 
moved an application with NADRA intimating that her correct year of 
birth was 1964 instead of 1963; therefore, corrected National Identity 
Card bearing No.128-64-180716 was issued to her. Later, upon 
introduction of computerized I.D. Cards, a Computerized National 
Identity Card was issued to her, which indicated her date of birth as 
1963. (It is important to note that she herself has brought on record 
that in one of the ID Cards prepared manually, her date of birth was 
written as 1963, which she got corrected as 1964 and then again when 
she obtained computerized ID Card, it again indicated her date of birth 
to be 1963).  
28. 
 
Learned Tribunal also obtained consent of the learned 
counsel and summoned relevant record of NADRA and examined the 
same. The Tribunal compared her signatures in exercise of powers 
CA 669-L/13 
24
under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and on her 
appearance she was also compared with the photograph attached with 
the admission form, registration form and Roll Number Slip with the 
attendance sheet of respondent and on having taken into consideration 
all the material, concluded that the photographs on the Forms were 
those of the Respondent No.1 herself and not of any third party who 
had allegedly impersonated her. Consequently petition was dismissed.  
29. 
 
In view of the facts that all the documents referred to 
hereinabove have been relied upon by the Election Tribunal and based 
its findings on the same without any objection from Respondent No.1, 
therefore, this Court is bound to consider the effect of the same vis-à-
vis the plea of both the sides.  
30. 
 
Learned counsel for Appellant besides relying upon the 
documentary evidence has also referred some of the oral parts of her 
statement to substantiate his plea. It is a cardinal principle of 
appreciation of evidence that in presence of both kinds of evidence i.e. 
oral and documentary, preferably the Courts take into consideration 
latter kind of evidence. Therefore, it would be appropriate to discuss 
the same in the light of the findings so recorded by the Tribunal.  
31. 
 
Learned Tribunal perhaps for want of proper assistance has 
referred to an application filed in the year 2002 by the Appellant 
before the University of Punjab. However, in the year 2002, admittedly 
no application was filed by Appellant. The correct position in this behalf 
is that reference of the members of the Committee namely Sh. 
Rehmat Assistant Controller and Muhammad Akram Khan, Deputy 
Controller relates to report dated 10.12.2002 which emerged from a 
CA 669-L/13 
25
civil suit filed by one Muhammad Afzal son of Muhammad Din. Learned 
counsel for the Appellant during hearing of the appeal, filed CMA 
6329/2013 for the purpose of placing on record the plaint dated 
14.12.2002 in the aforementioned Civil Suit which was filed against 
the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore as well as 
Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate.  
32. 
 
It is to be noted that the residential address of the plaintiff 
Muhammad Afzal as mentioned in the plaint was 38-J, Defence 
Housing Authority, Lahore, which was the same as that of Appellant 
Umar Aslam mentioned by him in his application dated 28.01.2003 
filed before the Vice Chancellor, University of Punjab, but this 
application is not relevant in any manner with the above-referred 
report of the Committee dated 10.12.2002 as the application was 
submitted on 29.1.2003. The Vice Chancellor/Controller of the 
Examination and Respondent No.1 were not made party in the civil 
suit. An application under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC was moved in that 
suit for the rejection of the plaint as against Board of Intermediate and 
Secondary Education said Court had no jurisdiction. Ultimately the suit 
was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.11.2003. Reference of the 
civil suit has been made here because learned counsel for Respondent 
No.1 has himself brought on record the same. A perusal of this 
document, which bears signatures of the members of the Committee 
and also Deputy Controller as well as Controller of Examinations, also 
suggests that Appellant had not participated in the said proceedings. 
Therefore, the observations of the learned Tribunal that the Appellant 
participated in those proceedings is not correct. Same is the position of 
the proceedings which took place on 12.12.2002 because on the said 
CA 669-L/13 
26
date as well, the Appellant was not associated in the proceedings 
arising out of civil suit, obviously for the reasons that according to the 
contents of the plaint he was neither cited as plaintiff or defendant nor 
there is any material on record to suggest that he was summoned in 
these proceedings.   
33. 
 
It is to be seen that on 10.12.2002 the Committee 
examined Admission Form, Roll No Slip, Gazette of BA 1st Annual 
Examination, 2002, Award Lists and Attendance Chart of Respondent 
No.1 and found the following:- 
She appeared in B.A Annual Exam 2002 under roll 
No.54334 Regd No.2002-z-27691 and was declared 
passed securing 293 marks. 
Photographs pasted on the Roll No slip and Admission 
Form were similar to each other. 
It was observed that allegation of impersonation can, however, be 
verified only after due inspection of the candidate’s NIC and her 
handwriting to compare it with the Answer Books. This document does 
not indicate that she was summoned on the following date; whereas 
report dated 12.12.2002 suggests that Respondent No.1 appeared 
before the Committee on 11.12.2002. Report further reveals that:- 
(a) 
Copy of NIC was not attached with the Admission 
Form. It was inspected in original and photocopy 
retained. Same was issued on 21.08.2002;  
(b) 
Specimen handwriting obtained compared with the 
handwriting of the candidate’s Answer Books. The 
handwriting was found similar; 
CA 669-L/13 
27
(c) 
Photographs on the Roll No.Slip, Admission Form 
compared with the photo of the candidate’s NIC and 
candidate herself, and found similar. 
(d) 
Specimen signature of the candidate obtained & 
compared with the one on NIC, SF 16 and found 
similar.  
After making the above observation, the Committee was of the view 
that the charges of impersonation are baseless and the result notified 
is correct. This document was signed again by 5 persons whose names 
have already been noted hereinabove. As the Appellant was not party, 
therefore, on 29.01.2003 he filed an application for permission to 
participate and assist the pending proceedings against Respondent 
No.1. Contents of this application are reproduced hereinbelow:- 
Sumaira Malik Tahir daughter of Allah Yar Khan 
purportedly appear in B.A. Examination under Roll 
No.54334. The registration number of the said candidate 
was 202-Z-27691 while the serial number was 102527. 
She has been declared as successful candidate while the 
fact 
remains 
that 
she 
procured 
the 
degree 
by 
impersonation. She has impersonified herself with some 
other lady who took the exam in her place.  
The University has initiated the proceedings against the 
said candidate and it was the applicant who through a 
formal application brought to the notice of the University 
about the said illegality and fraud played by the said 
candidate. 
There is every likelihood that the said candidate by 
exerting her influence might take illegal advantage and 
get the record destroyed or fabricated.  
The applicant is an aggrieved person as the said 
candidate by using unfair means procured the B.A. 
Degree and subsequently contested the last general 
CA 669-L/13 
28
election. The applicant is in a position to provide sufficient 
proof about the illegalities, which the said candidate has 
committed.  
It will be in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay that 
the petitioner be allowed to join the aforementioned 
proceedings. The permission to allow the petitioner in the 
said proceedings would make the process transparent and 
fair.  
It is therefore, most respectfully requested that the 
applicant may please be allowed to participate and join 
the proceedings for fair, just and lawful decision of the 
matter. 
34. 
 
A perusal of above application indicates that it was not the 
Appellant on whose application the University has initiated proceedings 
against respondent No.1. Essentially, the appellant has not adverted to 
the finding recorded on 10.12.2002 and 12.12.2002 because same 
were on account of Civil Suit which was filed against Vice Chancellor 
and Respondent No.1 and in these proceedings he was not a party. It 
seems that some other applications have been moved by him on the 
basis of which proceedings were initiated. On one of these 
applications, an order was passed by the Vice Chancellor on 
17.01.2003 and a report was prepared on 10.02.2003 again by 
Muhammad Akram Khan, Deputy Controller Exams under his 
signatures, wherein it was mentioned that a civil suit was filed against 
Respondent No.1, who appeared in BA annual examination, 2002 
under Roll No.54334 containing the allegation that she made 
arrangements to cheat in the examination by way of impersonation. 
The Court directed the University to report the validation of her result. 
Case was placed before the Committee for consideration. The 
Committee considered the Admission Form, Result Notification, Award 
CA 669-L/13 
29
Lists, Attendance Chart, Answer Books and Roll No. Slips, etc. It may 
be noted that these are the same documents reference of which has 
been given by the Presiding Officer of Election Tribunal attributing that 
the application was filed by the Appellant whereas from these 
documents it is also clear that these proceedings were drawn in 
pursuance of a civil suit to which the Appellant was not a party. It is 
further stated in the said document that the Committee after 
examining the whole record directed office to call upon the candidate 
to appear before it along with her National Identity Card. Candidate 
appeared before the Committee; her NIC was checked; her specimen 
handwriting was obtained and compared with the handwriting available 
on the answer books and it was found identical. In the meanwhile, 
another application from the Appellant was received stating therein 
that he had some solid evidence against Ms. Sumaira Malik Tahir. He 
provided three documents to the Committee: Election Poster with 
photograph of the candidate, photocopy of Admission Form and a 
photocopy of her photograph published in the newspaper. After going 
through the said documents the Committee was of the view that 
Respondent No.1 is not guilty of impersonation and her result is valid 
as per University record. On the said noting, Vice Chancellor passed 
following order:- 
“Please review and put all documents seen by the Committee by 
20.2.2003.” 
However, the matter was not placed before Vice Chancellor as per 
available record as the Additional Controller wrote ‘seen’ on the note.  
35. 
 
It is not understandable that when the application of 
Appellant had not been entertained and he had not been made party in 
CA 669-L/13 
30
the earlier proceedings held on 10.12.2002 and 12.12.2002, instead of 
allowing him to participate in the proceedings, merely on receipt of 
documents referred to hereinabove, it was concluded that Repondent 
No.1 is not guilty of impersonation. We are of the opinion that any 
proceedings which have been drawn in absence of the Appellant do not 
have binding effect upon him as he had a right to be allowed to 
participate in the proceedings.  
36. 
 
Learned Tribunal has not made reference to the second 
report, which has been signed by Mr. Muhammad Akram Khan, Deputy 
Controller (Exam) and Additional Controller (Exam) on 10.2.2003 and 
the Tribunal concluded that Respondent No.1 is in possession of a 
genuine degree by relying upon the reports of the Committee arising 
from the aforementioned civil suit.. This statement of fact, as it is 
apparent, is not correct. The three member Committee was 
constituted by the Vice Chancellor and later a five members 
Committee was constituted, names whereof have already been 
mentioned hereinabove, for probing into the issue, which has arisen at 
that time out of a civil suit filed by Muhammad Afzal or in respect of 
some other suit wherein Vice Chancellor and Respondent No.1 were  
parties. Therefore, under the circumstances, the conclusion that the 
findings of the Committee followed  those of another Committee is not 
acceptable. The Tribunal seized with the issue could have inquired 
from both the sides about the nature of the proceedings which have 
given rise to constitute a Committee to record proceedings on 
10.12.2002 signed by five persons. Inasmuch as nothing has been 
stated in respect of application dated 29.01.2003. As this document is 
not disputed, therefore, making reference to the same is not difficult.  
CA 669-L/13 
31
37. 
 
Thus, in view of such circumstances we have to examine 
the documents independently. In a number of cases, courts, including 
the Supreme Court have examined the veracity of documents, 
signatures and handwriting under the powers granted by Article 84 of 
the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Reference may be made to Waqas 
Enterprises v. Allied Bank of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 85), Ahmed Hassan 
Khan v. Naveed Abbas (1998 SCMR 346) and Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf 
Ali Shah (1992 SCMR 1778). 
38. 
 
First of all reference has to be made to the Admission 
Form, Ex.R1/3, which is purportedly filled by the Respondent, 
containing her photograph Ex.RW 1/2 to appear in BA examination as 
a private candidate. Admittedly no ID Card was attached as it is 
mentioned in the proceedings dated 10.12.2002 conducted by five 
members Committee arising out of a civil suit. It is important to note 
that in Column No.19 of the Admission Form, it was necessary to note 
Bank Challan Number, Date, Amount and City/Branch, because 
according to the calendar of the University of Punjab no student shall 
be allowed to appear in examination if requisite fee for examination 
etc. has not been paid.  
39. 
 
Admittedly, on examining the Admission Form and Roll No. 
Slip, it appears that there is no difference in both these photographs. 
According to her own version, her date of birth was shown in the 
manual ID Card as 1963 and she got it corrected her date of birth as 
1964 and number of the same has been mentioned in the Admission 
Form. It would be appropriate to note that at the time of preparation 
CA 669-L/13 
32
of manual ID Card, in Blocks 5 and 6, the year of birth used to be 
mentioned.  
40. 
 
A comparison of all the three ID Cards of Respondent No.1 
with the naked eye makes it abundantly clear that her photograph on 
ID Card showing her date birth to be 1964 bearing No.128-64-180716 
is identical with the photographs on Admission Form as well as Roll No. 
Slip. Whereas, there is quite a noticeable difference between the 
above said photographs and the photographs appearing on her 
manually prepared ID Card bearing No.128-63-180716 as well as her 
computerized ID Card bearing No.61101-0176307-6 wherein again her 
date of birth has been shown as 1963. Similar is the position of her 
photographs appearing in the newspaper filed by the appellant. 
Likewise, photograph appearing on posters used for the election 
campaign is not identical with the photographs appearing on the 
Admission Form and Roll No. Slip as well as ID Card showing her date 
of birth to be 1964.   
41. 
 
Now turning towards the handwriting, it is to be noted that 
she had allegedly given sample of her handwriting, extract of a para, 
which has been produced before this Court. A plain comparison of the 
signature on the ID Card bearing No.128-64-180716, handwritten 
samples and the signatures on the Admission Form clearly indicates 
that there is lot of difference. We consider it appropriate to hold, with 
due deference, that the learned Tribunal had a duty to compare all 
these documents in juxtaposition to ascertain whether Respondent 
No.1 appeared in the examination. Respondent No. 1’s oral evidence 
has also not supported her contention as after going through her 
cross-examination one can conveniently note that she failed to furnish 
CA 669-L/13 
33
correct version of her stance, which she has taken before the Tribunal 
as well as before the Election tribunal. Therefore, on deep appreciation 
of evidence, both documentary and oral, made by the parties and also 
going through the judgment of the learned Tribunal we have no option 
except to hold that University authorities failed to arrive at a correct 
conclusion in view of the evidence produced before them. It is clear 
that in order to make herself qualified for contesting elections in the 
year 2002 she arranged a BA degree by way of impersonation to fulfill 
the requirements of Article 8-A of the Conduct of General Election 
Order, 2002. Otherwise, after having passed Intermediate in the year 
1981 there was no necessity for her to obtain BA degree. 
42. 
 
Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that as 
there 
is 
allegation 
against 
the 
University, 
therefore, 
without 
impleading the same no finding can be recorded. We are of the opinion 
that the contentions, raised by the learned counsel are not 
entertainable because there are always litigations between the parties 
in respect of validity and genuineness, of the degree obtained by 
adopting illegal means including impersonation. It is to be observed 
that a University, being a place of education, should not be dragged 
into litigation; as it is for the University to decide whether or not to 
take action against delinquents.  
43. 
 
Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 also stated that the 
Appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands because as 
far as the contents of the application dated 29.05.2003 are concerned, 
he participated in the proceedings and the stand taken by him before 
the Court was that he was not allowed to participate in the same.  The 
CA 669-L/13 
34
arguments of the learned counsel could have carried weightage had 
we not held hereinabove that the Respondent No.1 is in possession of 
BA degree which she has got by impersonation. Thus, the arguments 
are without substance and not acceptable.  
44. 
 
The next question is as to whether the appellant is entitled 
for any relief in view of the fact that Respondent No.1 is no more 
member of the National Assembly as a result of the General Elections 
of 2008 because the Assembly, after completing its term has been 
dissolved. It is to be noted that the Appellant has been diligently 
pursuing the case of Respondent No.1’s disqualification for the last so 
many years commencing from 2002 up till now. Therefore, he is 
entitled for the relief as it has been concluded against Respondent 
No.1 that she has obtained BA degree by way of impersonation; 
meaning thereby that at the time when she filed nomination papers 
she was not qualified to contest and had proved herself not sagacious, 
righteous, non-profligate, honest and Ameen in terms of Article 
62(1)(f) of the Constitution, as it has held in the case of Syed 
Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi’s case (PLD 2012 SC 1089). Relevant portion 
therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:- 
“81.  … …  
(d) 
All 
the 
Members 
of 
the 
Parliament/Provincial 
Assemblies noted above had made false declarations 
before 
the 
Election 
Commission 
while 
filing 
their 
nomination papers and as such appear to be guilty of 
corrupt practice in terms of Section 78 of Representation 
of Peoples Act, 1976, therefore, the Election Commission is 
directed to institute legal proceedings against them under 
section 82 of the Act read with sections 193, 196, 197, 
198 and 199 PPC in accordance with law. 
(e) The members of Parliament/ Provincial Assemblies 
noted hereinabove, being disqualified persons are directed 
to refund all monetary benefits drawn by them for the 
period during which they occupied the public office and 
had drawn their emoluments etc. from the public 
exchequer 
including 
monthly 
remunerations, 
TA/DA, 
facilities of accommodation along with other perks which 
shall be calculated in terms of money by the Secretaries of 
the Senate, National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies 
CA 669-L/13 
35
accordingly. 
(f) The amount, so recovered from all of them by 
respective Secretaries shall be deposited in the public 
exchequer within a period of two weeks and compliance 
report shall be sent to the Registrar. 
 (g) As regards the case of Senator A. Rehman Malik, it 
may be noted that at the time of filing of nomination 
papers for election to the Senate held in the year 2008, he 
had made a false declaration to the effect that he was not 
subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Article 63 
of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in 
force 
for 
being 
elected 
as 
a 
member 
of 
the 
Parliament/Provincial Assembly, therefore, reference will 
be required to be made to the Chairman Senate under 
Article 63(2) in view of the provision of section 99(1)(f) of 
the Act of 1976, which lays down that a person shall not 
be qualified from being elected or chosen as a member of 
an Assembly unless he is sagacious, righteous and non- 
profligate and honest and ameen. Mr. A. Rahman Malik, in 
view of the false declaration filed by him at the time of 
contesting the election to the Senate held in the year 
2008, wherein he was elected, cannot be considered 
sagacious, righteous, honest and ameen within the 
contemplation of section 99(1)(f) of the Act of 1976. 
Therefore, for such purposes Article 63(p) is to be adhered 
to because the disqualification incurred by him is 
envisaged under the law, referred to hereinabove in view 
of his own statement that he had renounced his citizenship 
of UK whereas the fact remains that such renunciation 
along with declaration can only be seen as having been 
made on 29-5-2012.” 
In the case of Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial v. Jamshed Alam (PLD 2013 
SC 179) this Court held as under: - 
“10. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently 
argued that prior to 18th Constitutional Amendment, in 
terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, the Court was 
not empowered to declare any person to be non-sagacious, 
not righteous or honest or an ameen, as such the 
observations of the Election Tribunal that the appellant 
was not only to contest the election in the year 2008, but 
was also not righteous or honest or an ameen person, was 
sustainable. In this regard it is to be noted that at the time 
of filing of nomination papers to contest the election in the 
CA 669-L/13 
36
year 2002, the appellant produced fake and forged 
education certificates and the Election Tribunal had 
declared him to be a impostor vide judgment dated 
26.12.2002.  It  is  to  be  noted  that Article 62(1)(f), as it 
stood prior to 18th Constitutional Amendment, provides 
that a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen 
as a Member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless he is 
sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen. It 
is clear from the plain reading of the said Article that there 
is no restriction upon the Court/Tribunal to declare any 
person to be not sagacious, righteous or ameen. 
Admittedly the appellant used fake documents not only in 
the year 2002 but also in the year 2008 and also made 
false declaration making him liable to criminal action under 
certain provisions of P.P.C. In the case of Muddasar 
Qayyum Nahra v. Ch. Bilal Ijaz (2011 SCMR 80) this Court 
had upheld the findings of Election Tribunal, Punjab 
whereby it was held that a person who indulges into using 
unfair means in procuring his educational qualifications 
does not deserve to claim to be an honest, righteous or 
Ameen 
person 
so 
that 
he 
be 
assigned 
the 
high 
responsibilities of performing national functions of running 
the affairs of the country. 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 
entry into the doors of National or Provincial Assemblies of 
our country. The respondent (therein) is thus not worthy of 
credence and cannot be allowed to be entrusted with State 
responsibilities of Law Making; to be in-charge of the 
National Exchequre or be eligible to represent the people 
CA 669-L/13 
37
of Pakistan.” 
In the case of Abdul Ghafoor Lehri v. Returning Officer, PB-29, 
Naseerabad-II (2013 SCMR 1271) it was held that: - 
“14. In the instant case, the appellant has failed to meet 
the criteria set out for proposed candidates under Article 
62(1)(d) & (f) of the Constitution and subsections (d), (e), 
(f) and (g) of section 99 of the Representation  of  People  
Act,  1976.  It  may  be  noted  that  under Article 63 of 
the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan there 
are certain disqualifications which are of temporary nature 
and a person disqualified under Article 63 can become 
qualified after lapse of certain period as mentioned therein, 
whereas, the requirement of Article 62 are of permanent 
nature 
and 
a 
person 
has 
to 
fulfill 
certain 
qualifications/conditions to become eligible to be elected or 
chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), 
otherwise, he is not eligible to be a Member of Majlis-e-
Shoora (Parliament). For this reason alone, Article 62 does 
not provide any period after which a person, who was 
declared disqualified under the said Article, can be eligible 
to contest the elections of the Parliament. In such view of 
the matter we hold that a person who is not qualified 
under Article 62(1)(f) cannot become qualified by efflux of 
time. Reference in this regard may also be made to the 
case of Imtiaz Ahmed Lali v. Ghulam Muhammad Lali (PLD 
2007 SC 369). In such circumstances the appellant has 
rightly been disqualified to be elected as member of the 
Parliament by the learned Election Tribunal by allowing the 
election appeal filed against acceptance of his nomination 
papers by the Returning Officer which findings were upheld 
by the High Court of Balochistan. In view of the facts and 
circumstances of the case and the material available on 
record we are of the view that the findings of the learned 
High Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence 
on record and the law on the subject.” 
CA 669-L/13 
38
In the case of Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui’s case (PLD 2012 SC 774) 
the Court, inter alia, held as follows:- 
“(3) As a Bench of 7 Hon’ble Judges vide judgment dated 
26.4.2012 followed by the detailed reasons released on 
8.5.2012 has found Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani guilty of 
contempt of Court under Article 204(2) of the Constitution 
of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 
3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and sentenced 
him to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court under 
section 5 of the said Ordinance, and since no appeal was 
filed against this judgment, the conviction has attained 
finality. Therefore, Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani has become 
disqualified from being a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora 
(Parliament) 
in 
terms 
of 
Article 
63(1)(g) 
of 
the 
Constitution 
on 
and 
from 
the 
date 
and 
time 
of 
pronouncement of the judgment of this Court dated 
26.4.2012 with all consequences,  i.e.  he  has  also  
ceased  to  be  the  Prime Minister  of  Pakistan  with  
effect  from  the  said  date  and  the office of the Prime 
Minister shall be deemed to be vacant accordingly”. 
45. 
 
Thus, on account of disqualification, under Article 62(1)(f) 
of the Constitution, in view of discussion and principles discussed 
above, the Respondent No.1 was not qualified to contest the elections 
in terms of the Constitutional provisions noted hereinabove, and she 
was not holding the office of MNA from Constituency No.69 with lawful 
authority; as a disqualified person has no right to represent the 
electorate of the country. Therefore, on account of such qualification 
she would not be entitled to contest the election in future as well, and 
if she does contest elections and is declared successful, the Election 
Commission shall be bound to de-notify her. From ab-initio, when she 
submitted nomination papers she was not qualified as according to 
CA 669-L/13 
39
findings so recorded by this Court she had obtained BA degree by way 
of 
impersonation 
and 
depending 
upon 
the 
same 
educational 
qualification as it is normally disclosed by the candidates in the 
nominations papers, she had proved herself not to be truthful person.  
46. 
 
For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is allowed. 
Resultantly, the notification dated 01.03.2008, notifying Respondent 
No.1 as the returned candidate from the Constituency NA-69 
(Khushab-I) in the general elections held on 18.02.2008, is declared to 
be void. Ms. Sumaira Malik is hereby declared to be disqualified from 
becoming Member of Parliament with all its consequences noted 
hereinabove.  
47. 
 
Copy of the judgment be sent to the Election Commission 
of Pakistan for further proceeding in accordance with law. The 
Appellant is also held to be entitled for cost throughout.  
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Announced on 28.10.2013 at Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
Approved For Reporting 
