IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
       (Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
 
 
CONST. PETITIONS NO.31/2011, 45/2007, 111 & 123/2012. 
 
  
Imran Khan. 
 
 
 
 
 
(in Const.P.31/2011) 
Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto. 
 
 
 
(in Const.P.45/2007) 
Syed Munawar Hassan and others.  
 
(in Const.P.111/2012) 
Saleem Zia. 
 
 
 
 
 
(in Const.P.123/2012) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         … Petitioners. 
VERSUS 
 
Election Commission of Pakistan and others. 
(in Const.P.31/2011) 
Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan.   
(in Const.P.45/2007) 
Federation of Pakistan and others.  
 
(in Const.P.111 & 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
123/2012) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         … Respondents. 
 
For the petitioner: 
(in Const.P.31/2011) 
 
Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Waqar Rana, ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR. 
 
For the petitioner: 
(in Const.P.45/2007) 
 
Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, AOR 
For the petitioners: 
(in Const.P.111/2012) 
 
Mr. Rashid A. Razvi, Sr. ASC 
 
For the petitioner: 
(in Const.P.123/2012) 
 
Dr. M. Shamim Rana, ASC with 
Mr. Saleem Zia, Adv. 
 
For the applicant: 
(in CMA No.4840/2012) 
 
Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem, ASC 
For the Federation: 
Mr. Dil Mohammad Alizai, DAG 
 
For Election Commission: 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC 
Syed Sher Afghan, DG (Elections) 
Mr. Muhammad Nawaz, Law Officer. 
 
For NADRA:  
Mr. Mehmood A. Shaikh, AOR 
Mr. Muzaffar Ali, DG. 
 
Date of Hearing: 
28.11.2012 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
2 
 
JUDGEMENT 
 
 
Sh. Azmat Saeed, J.- The Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 envisages a parliamentary system of 
government. It provides for a Parliament (National Assembly and the 
Senate of Pakistan) for the Federation and the Provincial Assemblies 
for the provinces. The people are to be governed by their chosen 
representatives and the Fundamental Rights including Article 17 
guaranteed under the Constitution are to be enforced. It may be 
advantageous to reproduce the said Article, which reads as under: -  
 
 
Freedom of association:  
(1) Every citizen shall have the right to form 
associations or unions, subject to any reasonable 
restrictions imposed by law in the interest of 
sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, public order 
or morality. 
  
(2) Every citizen, not being in the service of Pakistan, 
shall have the right to form or be a member of a 
political 
party, 
subject 
to 
any 
reasonable 
restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the 
sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan and such law 
shall provide that where the Federal Government 
declares that any political party has been formed 
or is operating in a manner prejudicial to the 
sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, the Federal 
Government shall, within fifteen days of such 
declaration, refer the matter to the Supreme Court 
whose decision on such reference shall be final. 
  
(3) Every political party shall account for the source of 
its funds in accordance with law. 
 
 
 
2. 
  
A comprehensive mechanism is provided to facilitate the 
people to choose their representatives in accordance with the 
Constitution and the laws on the subject regulating different aspects of 
the election process including Articles 218 and 219 of the Constitution 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
3 
and the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974. Under Article 218(3), it is the duty of 
the Election Commission of Pakistan to organize and conduct the 
elections and to make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure 
that the election is conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance 
with law, be it a general election or a bye-election. Whereas under 
Article 219 of the Constitution, the Election Commission of Pakistan is 
charged with the duty of preparing electoral rolls and revising the 
same periodically so as to enable all the eligible voters to exercise 
their right of franchise.  
3. 
  
It may be pertinent to mention here that Constitution 
Petition No. 45 of 2007 was filed by Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto (late) 
under Article 184(3) of the Constitution with the prayer that the 
respondents 
(ECP 
& 
others) 
be 
directed 
to 
update 
the 
computerized/electronic voters lists to encompass the names of all 
persons entitled to vote in terms of Article 51(2) of the Constitution 
and the condition of CNIC for registration of eligible voters may be 
declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The said 
petition came up for hearing before this Court on 10.08.2007, when an 
order was passed, relevant para of which is reproduced herein below:-  
 
“2. 
It may be noted that the Election Commission 
has submitted parawise comments, in which a 
schedule for the additional entries in the computerized 
electoral roll 2006-2007 has been provided, according 
to which a process has commenced from 3rd August, 
2007 and it will end on 20th December, 2007 and in 
this way 140 days are required to complete the same. 
We have minutely gone through the same. The time 
being consumed to complete certain steps is on the 
high side. We believe that such exercise can be 
completed within a minimum period because the 
matter is quite simple as on the one hand there is 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
4 
electoral list of the voters prepared for the election of 
2002, according to which the number of voters is 
71.86 million whereas in the electoral list which has 
been presently prepared, number of voters has been 
shown to be 5,21,02,428. There is approximately a 
difference of about 2 crores. Therefore, the Election 
Commission after minusing (sic) the votes, already 
recorded, has to check only in respect of the 
genuineness or otherwise of the remaining votes and 
for that purpose, they can provide forms, etc. to those 
voters whose names have not been recorded by taking 
out the names from original list, through post-offices 
or any means within a minimum time and by 
increasing the number of staff twice or thrice this 
exercise can be completed within a period not more 
than 30 days. However, further improvement in such 
exercise can also be made by the Commission with a 
view to minimize the period of recording the names of 
the left over voters in existing electoral list and to 
ensure that there must be fair and transparent 
elections, which are scheduled to be held in the near 
future.”  
 
4. 
 
The case was then taken up on 04.10.2007 when the 
representative of the ECP stated that in pursuance to the directions of 
this Court, the exercise has been completed and 27 million voters have 
been added in the electoral rolls. It was further stated that there were 
a total of 80 million people who were eligible for exercising the right of 
vote but some more time would be required to complete the printing 
and publication of the electoral lists in accordance with the rules. 
Accordingly, ECP was directed to complete the printing/publishing 
exercise up to 25.10.2007 whereafter the list would be placed on the 
website of the Commission.   
5. 
  
On 07.04.2011, Mr. Imran Khan, Chairman, Pakistan 
Tehrik-e-Insaf filed Constitution Petition No. 31 of 2011 with, inter 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
5 
alia, the prayer that the ECP be directed to prepare fresh electoral rolls 
eliminating all bogus votes and introducing and incorporating the new 
eligible votes who can be verified from the relevant database and 
record of NADRA. And to include the names of the voters, as per their 
addresses given in the CNIC. The petition was heard from time to time 
and necessary orders were passed. On 04.07.2011, the Secretary ECP 
appeared before the Court and stated that a Proforma has been 
prepared allowing the voter to exercise his/her option to vote either at 
the permanent place of residence or where he/she is temporarily 
residing on account of his/her place of work, etc., and the option so 
exercised by him/her shall be printed in the voters’ list.  
6. 
 
In 
the 
meanwhile, 
Workers 
Party 
Pakistan 
filed 
Constitution Petition No. 87 of 2011 with, inter alia, the prayer that 
the prevailing electioneering practices involving wealth, power and 
influence are against the mandate of the Constitution and are an 
impediment to a free, fair, just and honest elections on a level playing 
field, which needs to be remedied. The said petition was disposed of 
by means of judgment reported as Workers’ Party Pakistan v. 
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 681) wherein it was held and 
directed, inter alia, as under: -  
 
 
“(j) 
To achieve the goal of fair, free, honest and 
just elections, accurate preparation/revision of 
electoral roll is immediately required to be 
undertaken by the Election Commission through 
credible and independent agencies. Accordingly, 
we direct the Election Commission to undertake 
door-to-door 
checking 
of 
voters’ 
lists 
and 
complete the process of updating/revision of the 
electoral rolls by engaging Army and the Frontier 
Corps to ensure transparency, if need be.”   
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
6 
 
7. 
 
Thereafter, Constitution Petition No. 111 of 2012 was filed 
on behalf of Syed Munawwar Hassan, Amir Jamat-e-Islami and 2 
others with, inter alia, the prayer that the electoral rolls prepared by 
the ECP which are tainted with irregularities and errors in the Province 
of Sindh especially Karachi be declared illegal, unlawful and that the 
respondents be directed to revise the electoral rolls and to correct the 
same on the basis of the present address of the voter in the city where 
he is residing. Mr. Saleem Zia, Secretary General, Pakistan Muslim 
League (N) Sindh filed Constitution Petition No. 123 of 2012 with an 
identical prayer. On 22.11.2012, Dr. Farogh Naseem, learned ASC filed 
CMA No. 4840 of 2012 on behalf of Muttahida Qaumi Movement 
(MQM) for impleadment as a co-respondent and giving him a right of 
audience on behalf of the intervener, which was allowed on the same 
day. All these matters have been heard together.  
8. 
 
We have heard M/s Hamid Khan, Rashid A. Razvi,          
Dr. Muhammad Shamim Rana, Dr. Farogh Naseem, Sardar Khurram 
Latif Khan Khosa, Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned counsel for the 
parties and Mr. Dil Mohammad Alizai, learned DAG.  
9. 
 
The main grievance raised before us by the learned 
counsel for the petitioners is that the judgment of this Court in the 
case of Workers’ Party Pakistan (supra) has not been complied with in 
its letter and spirit by the ECP, inasmuch as, there have been gross 
errors and irregularities in the preparation of the Electoral Roll of 
Karachi wherein a large number of voters have been disenfranchised 
and their names have been removed from the Electoral Roll. In 
response to the above, a rather evasive reply has been submitted on 
behalf of the Election Commission which is of not much significant, in 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
7 
the presence of the material, placed before us, including a comparative 
statement of the Electoral Roll, wherein 663 electors have been 
registered to be the residents of House No.E-43, PECHS, Block-II, 
Karachi, allegedly constructed on a 120 square yards. And the 
statement made by Dr. M. Shamim Rana, ASC that names of a large 
number of voters have been deleted from the Electoral Roll of Karachi 
and shifted to different parts of the country arbitrarily including his 
own vote. To further demonstrate his pleas, he has also referred to 
relevant material filed by him through CMA No.4830 of 2012. Mr. 
Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC contended that according to credible information, 
while revising the voter lists, as per commitment of the Secretary, 
ECP, made in the order dated 4.7.2011, only 10% voters were 
approached by the Electoral Staff.  
10. 
  
Learned counsel for the petitioners further alleged that 
approximately  50% votes of the electors of Karachi have been shifted 
to other parts of the country and in their places, names of unverified 
voters have been inserted, which is likely to lead to rigging in the 
forthcoming elections as a result whereof it would not be possible to 
fulfill the command of the Constitution of ensuring right of franchise a 
fundamental right of each actual/real voters, whose names stand 
verified for the last 2/3 general and bye-elections and the object of 
holding free, fair, honest and just election will be defeated unless the 
names of voters are re-verified on a door-to-door basis in accordance 
with the Constitution and the Law through their CNIC.  
11. 
 
Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa, learned counsel in 
Const.P.No.45/2007 has urged that an identical complaint was 
highlighted in the petition filed by Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto (late), the 
then Chairperson of PPP invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
8 
184(3) of the Constitution, now represented by Mr. Jehangir Badar, 
Secretary General of the Party. He has reiterated the assertion made 
by Mr. Jehangir Badar, Secretary General, Pakistan Peoples Party while 
appearing before this Court on 21.11.2012 that the Electoral Roll of 
Karachi prepared by the ECP contains gross errors/violations, which 
need to be rectified/corrected as prayed for by the learned counsel 
appearing on behalf of other petitioners. He has referred to the order 
of this Court dated 16.08.2007 passed in Const. Petition No.45/2007, 
wherein the ECP was directed to complete the exercise within a period 
of 30 days from the date of the said order, in the light of the 
observations made in the order dated 10.08.2007 reproduced 
hereinabove.  
12. 
 
Dr. Farogh Naseem, learned counsel for applicant-MQM, on 
the other hand, has contended that the exercise of preparation of the 
Electoral Rolls in Karachi has been completed and until the elections 
are announced, they can be varied and altered at the behest of the 
individual voter only, and not on the request of any of the political 
parties and there is no ground for fresh revision of Electoral Roll nor 
will it be just. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the cases 
titled as Lakshmi Charan Sen and others v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman 
and others (AIR 985 SC 1233) and C. Lakshmi Narain v. The Chief 
Election Commission (AIR 1997 Madras 125).  
13. 
 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned counsel appearing 
for the Election Commission, on the other hand, has contended that 
the exercise of preparing the Electoral Roll of Karachi has already been 
completed and that the Election Commission has filed its reply in which 
it has explained its position. He has contended that annual revision of 
the Electoral Rolls of Karachi at this stage is not permitted by law and 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
9 
such revision can only be carried out in the next year, as the law 
requires annual revision of the Electoral Rolls. He, however, contended 
that individual grievances, if raised in accordance with law, can always 
be entertained and redressed until elections are announced. Mr. Dil 
Muhammad Alizai, learned DAG has adopted the arguments of         
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned ASC.   
14. 
 
Adverting first to the objection raised by Dr. Farogh 
Naseem, learned counsel appearing on behalf of MQM that the alleged 
complaints made by the petitioners are individual in nature and 
mechanism of redressal of such individual complaints is provided for in 
the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 and the Rules framed thereunder and the 
petitioner-political parties have no locus standi to agitate the matter in 
these proceedings. In the instant case, Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution has been invoked and suffice it to say that with the 
passage of time, the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 
184(3) of the Constitution has steadily evolved and expanded with its 
contours now well established through the successive judgments 
handed down by this Court. It has been declared that proceedings 
under Article 184(3) are not limited to adversarial proceedings to be 
initiated by a wronged litigant seeking redressal of his individual 
grievance. Likewise, the rule of locus standi has also not been held 
applicable to the cases involving questions of public importance with 
reference to enforcement of the Fundamental Rights, especially in the 
domain of Public Interest Litigation to ensure a meaningful protection 
of the Rule of Law to all citizens, as has been laid down in judgments 
reported as Miss Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan and another 
(PLD 1988 SC 416), Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of 
Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473), Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
10 
others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2012 SCMR 455) and 
Muhammad Yaseen v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, 
Establishment Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2012 SC 132)]. 
15. 
  
As regards the objection to the maintainability of the 
instant petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in the context 
of elections and the rights of the political parties to agitate for the due 
fulfillment of the Constitutional and legal requirements in respect 
thereof, this Court in its judgment reported as Workers’ Party (supra) 
has held as under:-  
 
“33. The scope of jurisdiction of this Court 
under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by now 
is fairly settled in a plethora of case-law, 
therefore, there is no necessity to recapitulate 
the constitutional provision or to refer to the 
entire case-law for the purpose of deciding the 
question of maintainability of the instant petition. 
This Court, in the cases of Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. 
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416), Haji 
Muhammad Saifullah Khan v. Federation of 
Pakistan 
(PLD 
1989 
SC 
166) 
and 
Mian 
Muhammad 
Nawaz 
Sharif 
v. 
President 
of 
Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 473) has already held 
that the right to form, or be a member of a 
political party guaranteed under Article 17 of the 
Constitution subsumes the right to participate or 
contest in the election, and to form government 
if successful. The petitioners have vehemently 
averred that the impugned practices violate the 
fundamental right of the citizenry at large 
guaranteed by Article 17 read with Article 25 of 
the Constitution. None of the respondents has 
rebutted the above assertion of the petitioners. 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
11 
Accordingly, the instant petition is held to be 
maintainable. 
 
34. 
It may be mentioned here that the instant 
petition falls in the public interest litigation, 
which is not adversarial but inquisitorial in 
nature. In the cases of Watan Party v. Federation 
of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 997) and All Pakistan 
Newspapers Society v. Federation of Pakistan 
(PLD 2012 SC 1) referred to by Mr. Farogh 
Naseem, ASC, this Court has held that it has the 
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a case if it falls 
within the ambit of inquisitorial proceedings. It is 
also well settled that while entertaining a direct 
petition under Article 184(3), this Court has 
ample power to examine the varies of laws, rules 
or regulations. Reference in this regard has been 
made to the cases of Wukala Mahaz Barai 
Tahafaz Dastoor v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 
1988 SC 1263), Farooq Ahmad Khan Laghari v. 
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 57), Jalal 
Mehmood Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 
1999 SC 395), Liaquat Hussain v. Federation of 
Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 504), Dr. Mobashir 
Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 
265) and Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salaam v. 
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 602).” 
 
Reference in this behalf may also be made to the judgment of this 
Court reported as Mubasher Lucman v. Federation of Pakistan and 
others (PLD 2011 SC 775). Thus, in the light of the law laid down in 
the aforesaid cases, it is clear that this Court, under Article 184(3) of 
the Constitution, not only has the jurisdiction to pass appropriate 
orders in the cases involving questions of public importance with 
reference to enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under the 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
12 
Constitution but is also empowered to ensure fulfillment of the 
command of the Constitution of holding elections honestly, justly, 
fairly and in accordance with law. Hence, these petitions are held to be 
maintainable and the grievances raised therein are justiceable by this 
Court in the present proceedings. The objection raised by Dr. Farogh 
Naseem, learned ASC appears to be misconceived and the judgments 
relied upon by him irrelevant in the facts and circumstances of the 
case. 
16. 
 
We have considered the submissions of the learned 
counsel for the parties on merits and have also gone through the 
material placed before us, and also the law relied upon by them.  
17. 
 
It is the command of the Constitution under Article 218(3) 
that the Election Commission of Pakistan is charged with the duty to 
ensure free, fair and just elections in the country, be it a general 
election 
or 
bye-election. 
Whereas, 
under 
Article 
219 
of 
the 
Constitution, the Election Commission of Pakistan is also commanded 
to revise the electoral list annually, object of which is none else, 
except that free and fair elections are held.    
18. 
  
Before dilating upon the laws on the subject, we consider it 
appropriate to reproduce herein below the number of constituencies of 
the National Assembly and the Provincial Assembly of Karachi Division, 
as per the gazette of Pakistan, June, 2002, from where electors are 
required to choose their representatives as per the mandate of the 
Constitution:- 
KARACHI DIVISION 
No. and Name of NA 
Constituencies 
NA 239 Karachi-I to NA-258 
Karachi-XX (20 Seats) 
 
No. and Name of PA 
Constituencies 
PS-89 Karachi-I to PS-130 
Karachi-XLII (42 Seats) 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
13 
 
It is equally important to note that following number of voters in 
Karachi have been brought on final Electoral Roll, 2012:- 
 
Name of 
District 
Male 
Female 
Eunuch 
Total 
Karachi Central 
897443 
712916 
5 
1610364 
Karachi East 
1129217 
901466 
6 
2030689 
Karachi South 
603258 
464342 
3 
1067603 
Karachi West 
856085 
560314 
12 
1416411 
Malir 
426562 
300314 
5 
726881 
Total 
3912565 2939352 
31 
6851948 
 
19. 
 
The Election Commission of Pakistan filed a reply vide CMA 
No.4654/2012, wherein it has admitted that the process of revision of 
Electoral List pertains to the month of April-May, 2011. Extract from 
the reply is reproduced herein below:-  
 
“8. 
Above-mentioned reasons enforced ECP and 
NADRA to align their databases with respect to 
addresses according to New Census Blocks. For 
this purpose, a Proforma was devised to capture 
and link current location of families with newly 
created Census Blocks. These Proformas were 
filled by enumerators during Housing Census – 
2011 conducted in April-May 2011 countrywide.” 
 
20. 
 
The grievance raised primarily with reference to Karachi 
through the instant Constitution Petitions must necessarily be 
examined in the above backdrop. It is the case of the Election 
Commission of Pakistan that door-to-door verification in Karachi has in 
fact been effected in respect of approximately 82% of the population. 
This fact is vehemently disputed by the learned counsel for the 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
14 
petitioners, who have contended that such door-to-door verification 
was not carried out in Karachi, which fact is obvious from the 
discrepancies and flaws identified by them by way of examples 
including the rather strange and physically impossible situation of over 
600 voters having been registered, as residents of a house measuring 
120 Sq. Yards. 
21. 
 
The primary basis for the Electoral List of the Housing 
Census carried out in April-May 2011. Even after the preparation of the 
Final Electoral Roll, the necessity of a further door-to-door verification 
was conceded by the Election Commission in para 23 of the above-said 
CMA, which is reproduced as follows:- 
 
 
“23. Voters 
having 
different 
current 
and 
permanent address can be re-verified through 
subsequent door to door verification along with 
fresh CNIC registrations.” 
 
22. 
 
It may be observed that Karachi has a peculiar 
background, which includes a serious law & order situation, detailed 
stock of the same has been taken by this Court in the case of Watan 
Party v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 997). In this judgment 
categorical directions were made for delimitation of the constituencies 
of Karachi in the following terms: - 
 
“Further observe that to avoid political polarization, 
and to break the cycle of ethnic strife and turf war, 
boundaries of administrative units like police station, 
revenue estates, etc. ought to be altered so that the 
members of different communities may live together 
in peace and harmony, instead of allowing various 
groups to claim that particular areas belong to them 
and declaring certain areas as NO GO Areas under 
their fearful influence. Subsequent thereto, on similar 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
15 
considerations, in view of relevant laws, delimitation of 
different constituencies has also to be undertaken with 
the same object and purpose, particularly to make 
Karachi, which is the hub of economic and commercial 
activities and also the face of Pakistan, a peaceful city 
in the near future. The Election Commission of 
Pakistan may also initiate the process on its own in 
this behalf.”  
 
We believe that so far, the above directions have not been 
implemented, therefore, Election Commission owes an explanation to 
this Court. Needless to observe that the above directions were made in 
the backdrop of the said case and was discussed at length. Another 
relevant portion from the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: - 
“26. It is noteworthy that the law enforcing 
agencies have detected a torture cell during 
hearing of the case at Karachi and succeeded in 
getting 
video 
clips 
of 
the 
most 
heinous, 
gruesome, brutal, horrible and inhuman acts of 
the criminals, who are found cutting throats of 
men and drilling their bodies. But, now it is 
informed that more such cells have been detected 
in different parts of Karachi. 
27. As far as the injured or wounded persons are 
concerned, they are countless in number in all the 
disturbed areas of Karachi where different political 
parties have got dominant population on the basis 
of the language being spoken by them. It may be 
noted that the objective of above-noted brutal 
and gruesome incidents is to terrorize the citizens 
of Karachi and keep the entire society a hostage.” 
… … …  
“92. An identical situation was prevailing in 
Malaysia 
and 
that 
Government 
with 
full 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
16 
commitment and sincerity had also collected illicit 
arms from the criminals. Similarly, this task can 
be completed in our country as well; if there is 
honest commitment on the part of the law 
enforcing agencies but in the instant case without 
depoliticizing the police, positive result apparently 
seems to be an uphill task, however, to ensure 
peace in Karachi, certain steps will have to be 
taken. The law enforcing agencies will have to be 
de-politicized as well as for recovery of illicit arms 
effective measures will have to be taken under a 
proper programme to be launched by the 
Government. As far as the question of presence of 
2.5 million aliens in Karachi is concerned, it is 
more alarming compared to the activities of the 
criminals involved in heinous crimes, like target 
killing, etc. This aspect of the case would reveal 
that the presence of such persons is not only a 
factor for increase in crime; but at the same time 
without proper registration, they are a burden on 
the national economy, inasmuch as their presence 
can give rise to so many other administrative 
problems, including obtaining of National Identity 
Cards by them. If they have succeeded in this 
venture and claim themselves to be citizens of 
Pakistan and have also succeeded in registering 
their names in the electoral list, it would be 
tantamount to depriving the actual electorate 
from choosing their representatives, inasmuch as 
due to their presence, areas have expanded 
considerably, 
which 
directly 
affects 
the 
delimitation of the constituencies meant for 
holding elections of the Provincial Assembly and 
the National Assembly, therefore, the Government 
should take immediate action against them in 
accordance with law, namely, the Foreigners Act. 
NADRA and the Police must undertake a careful 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
17 
cleansing process of such people and NADRA must 
have separate records and computer files based 
on proper and cogent evidence. NADRA and police 
should co-operate in Karachi through an intensive 
drive to identify foreigners, block their NIC cards 
after due process of law and special teams should 
be appointed and dedicated for this job by DG 
NADRAT and IGP so that this can be completed in 
the course of next one year or so. Then the law 
must take it own course in each case. This must 
be given high priority.” 
 
 
23. 
  
The apprehensions of all the petitioners cannot be brushed 
aside in view of the reasons (directions) quoted above. It is also to be 
noted that the above judgment is intact as it has not been challenged 
by filing review petition. Thus a concluded judgment, furnishes strong 
reasons to hold that in such a situation when there were NO GO Areas, 
in Karachi; police has been politicized (as per statement of IGP, 30% 
to 40% of the Principal Law Enforcing Agency, has been politicized); 
political parties, barring a few have militant groups; life and property 
of the citizen is not protected; etc., the process of preparing of 
Electoral Rolls or revising the same transparently was not likely, as 
alleged by the petitioners. Furthermore, in a situation where life and 
property of the people is not protected, how electors would come 
forward to co-operate with the staff of election department for such 
purpose, and there is every likelihood of illegalities having taken place.  
24. 
  
Viewed in the above perspective, the discrepancies in the 
Electoral Roll of Karachi identified by the learned counsel for the 
Petitioners by way of example, examined in conjunction with the 
admitted position of the Election Commission that a door-to-door 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
18 
verification of the entire residents of Karachi has not been carried out 
leads to the conclusion that the Electoral Rolls of Karachi do not inspire 
confidence and the possibility that a significant number of residents of 
Karachi may have been disenfranchised cannot be ignored. An 
accurate Electoral Roll is a sine quo non for the holding of a free, fair 
and transparent election, which is not only the command of the 
Constitution but also a Fundamental Right of the citizens, which 
appears to have been compromised qua the residents of Karachi.  
25. 
 
It may not be out of context to mention that this Court 
while deciding the case of Workers’ Party Pakistan (supra) has already 
highlighted the importance of preparation of the electoral list to ensure 
free and fair elections and has held as under: -  
 
“67. Fair, free, honest and just elections are since 
qua non for strengthening of democracy. To 
achieve this goal, accurate preparation/revision of 
electoral roll is immediately required to be 
undertaken by the Election Commission through 
credible and independent agencies. In so doing, 
the convential ways and means of merely 
depending upon NADRA alone or other similar 
bodies 
must 
be 
discontinued 
forthwith. 
Accordingly, we direct the Election Commission to 
undertake door-to-door checking of voters’ lists 
and complete the process of updating/revision of 
the electoral rolls by engaging Army and the 
Frontier Corps, if need. ……”  
 
26. 
  
It may be noted that Article 219 of the Constitution, which 
is an enabling provision, contemplates an annual revision of Electoral 
Roll subject to law including the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 and the Rules 
framed thereunder. It is an admitted position that the matter of the 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
19 
revision of the Electoral Roll was communicated to this Court by 
Secretary, Election Commission. The relevant portion of the order 
dated 4.7.2011 reads as under: - 
 
“Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Secretary Election Commission of 
Pakistan stated that:- 
(i) 
In view of the report of NADRA following 
categories of unverified voters have been 
removed from the database of NADRA:- 
Category of unverified Voters 
Voters 
Count 
Voters without any Identity Number 
15,028,808 
Voters with Invalid CNIC 
2,140,015 
Voters with Duplicate CNIC entries 
2,491,090 
Voters with Duplicate MNIC entries 
6,469,310 
Voters with MNIC not registered with 
NADRA 
11,056,775 
Total unverified Voters: 
37,185,998 
 
(ii) 
In the place of above removed voters, 36 
million voters have been entered into the 
database and verification of both the categories 
is to be carried out by visiting/approaching the 
house of each voter by the representative of the 
Election Commission door to door. This exercise 
shall commence from 18th of July, 2011 and is 
likely to be completed on 16th of August, 2011. 
He 
added 
that 
further 
procedure 
of 
publishing/displaying these lists shall be carried 
out according to law and in this respect, a 
comprehensive plan has already been chalked 
out, copy of which has been placed on record. 
According to him, the whole procedure is likely 
to be completed by 16th of December, 2011 and 
thereafter the lists shall be handed over to 
NADRA for scanning and printing.” 
 
This process was undertaken in the month of May, 2011 but the final 
notification has been issued in May, 2012. Thus, we have to refer to 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
20 
the meaning of Annual, which could mean, after one year or during a 
year, from time to time. For reference the meaning and definition of 
“annual” is given below: - 
Annual Meaning and Definition 
 
The World Book Dictionary, Volume One 
1. 
Coming once a year: Your Birthday is an 
annual event. 
2. 
In a year; for a year: What is his annual 
salary? 
3. 
Lasting for a whole year; accomplished 
during a year: The earth makes an annual 
course around the sun.    
4. 
Living but one year or season: Corn and 
beans are annual plants.   
 
The Major Law Lexicon 
Pertaining or relating to a year; yearly; as the 
annual growth of a tree; annual profits; annual 
rents; relating to the events or transactions of a 
year; as, an annual report.  
The word ‘annual’ means something which is 
reckoned by the year.    
 
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English 
Language, Fourth Edition  
1. 
(n.) A thing happening or returning yearly; 
especially a literary work published once a 
year. 
2. 
(n.) A Mass for a deceased person or for 
some special object, said daily for a year or 
on the anniversary day. 
3. 
(a.) Performed or accomplished in a year; 
reckoned by the year; as, the annual 
motion of the earth. 
4. 
(a.) Lasting or continuing only one year or 
one 
growing 
season; 
requiring 
to 
be 
renewed every year; as, an annual plant; 
annual tickets. 
5. 
(a.) Of or pertaining to a year; returning 
every year; coming or happening once in 
the year; yearly. 
an·nu·al  ( n y
- l)  
adj. 
1. 
Recurring, done, or performed every year; 
yearly: an annual medical examination. 
2. 
Of, relating to, or determined by a year: an 
annual income. 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
21 
3. 
Botany Living or growing for only one year 
or season. 
n. 
1. 
A periodical published yearly; a yearbook. 
2. 
Botany A plant that completes its entire life 
cycle in a single growing season. 
[Middle English annuel, from Old French, from 
Late 
Latin annu lis, 
ultimately 
from 
Latin annus,year; 
see at- in 
Indo-European 
roots.] 
Collins English Dictionary  
 
annual  
adj 
1. 
occurring, done, etc., once a year or every 
year; yearly an annual income 
2. 
lasting for a year an annual subscription 
n 
1. 
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Botany) a 
plant that completes its life cycle in less than 
one year Compare perennial [3] biennial [3] 
2. 
(Communication Arts / Journalism & Publishing) 
a book, magazine, etc., published once every 
year 
[from Late Latin annuālis, from Latin annuus yearly, 
from annus year] 
 
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary 
annual  ( n y
- l) 
Adjective 
Completing a life cycle in one growing season. 
Noun 
An annual plant. Annuals germinate, blossom, 
produce seed, and die in one growing season. 
They are common in environments with short 
growing seasons. Most desert plants are annuals, 
germinating and flowering after rainfall. Many 
common weeds, wild flowers, garden flowers, and 
vegetables are annuals. Examples of annuals 
include 
tomatoes, 
corn, 
wheat, 
sunflowers, 
petunias, and zinnias. Compare biennial perennial 
 
Webster's 1913 Dictionary 
1. 
Of or pertaining to a year; returning every 
year; coming or happening once in the 
year; yearly. 
The annual overflowing of the river [Nile]. --
Ray. 
2.  
Performed or accomplished in a year; 
reckoned by the year; as, the annual 
motion of the earth. 
A thousand pound a year, annual support. -
-Shak. 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
22 
3. 
Lasting or continuing only one year or one 
growing season; requiring to be renewed 
every year; as, an annual plant; annual 
tickets. --Bacon. 
 
Annual (n) 
1. 
A thing happening or returning yearly; esp. 
a literary work published once a year. 
2. 
Anything, especially a plant, that lasts but 
one year or season; an annual plant. 
3. 
A Mass for a deceased person or for some 
special object, said daily for a year or on 
the anniversary day. 
 
In the case of National Insurance Company v. Life Insurance 
Corporation (AIR 1963 SC 1171) it has been held that the word 
“annual” must be given its full meaning. By the word “annual” is 
meant something which is reckoned by the year. In the case of Prem 
Kevalram Shahani v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1989 Karachi 123) 
it has been held that a plain reading of Article 218 shows that its 
clauses (1) and (2) provide the constitution of the Commission and its 
composition, whereas clause (3) provides its duties, namely, that it 
shall be the duty of the Election Commission in relation to an election 
to organize and conduct the election and to make such arrangements 
as are necessary to ensure that the election is conducted honestly, 
justly, fairly and in accordance with law, and that corrupt practices are 
guarded against, whereas Article 219 lays down the duties of the 
Commission, namely, preparing electoral rolls for election to the 
National Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies and revising such 
rolls annually, organizing and conducting election to the Senate or to 
fill casual vacancies in a House or a Provincial Assembly and 
appointing Election Tribunals. 
 
There can be no escape from the fact that a free, fair, just and 
transparent election is the very heart of our democratic system, as 
envisaged by the Constitution.  Such elections must not only be held in 
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
23 
a fair, just and honest manner but also appear to be so; in order to 
inspire the confidence of the electorate. The provisions of Article 219 
of the Constitution and the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 and rules framed 
thereunder must necessarily be interpreted in manner so as to achieve 
the said object. Consequently, Election Commission must fulfill its 
obligation cast upon it by Article 218 of the Constitution of ensuring 
the holding free, fair and transparent elections and to achieve such 
purpose seek assistance, if necessary from the Executive Authorities in 
the Federation in this behalf which are obliged to render such 
assistance by virtue of Article 220 of the Constitution.  
27. 
  
There is no denial of the fact that free, fair, honest, 
transparent and just election is demand of the day as the 
Parliamentary system of the country is strengthening day by day. 
Therefore, all eligible citizens have a fundamental right of franchise, 
which must be protected by issuing appropriate directions.  
28. 
 
In the above circumstances, it is clear that the Electoral 
Rolls of the city of Karachi are required to be revised by the Election 
Commission in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Article 219 
of the Constitution read with Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 to achieve the 
object, which is to be ensured by the Commission in terms of Article 
218 of the Constitution. Thus, the Election Commission of Pakistan is 
directed to carry out proper and complete door-to-door verification in 
Karachi so as to ensure that no voter is disenfranchised or dislocated 
and all other discrepancies are rectified as early as possible. 
 
In view of the peculiar security situation in Karachi highlighted 
hereinabove such verification must be carried out by the Election 
Commission with the help and assistance of Pakistan Army and the FC. 
05.12.2012
Const. P No.31-2011, etc. 
24 
29.   
For the foregoing reasons, Constitution Petitions No.45 of 
2007 and 111 & 123 of 2012 are disposed of in the above terms. 
Constitution Petition No.31 of 2011 is adjourned to a date in office.  
 
 
Chief Justice 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Announced in open Court on _________,  
Islamabad. 
 
‘Approved for reporting’  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
 
 
 
 
   



 



    

  



Const. Petitions No. 31/2011, 45/2007, 111 & 123/2012





in Const. P. 31/2011
 

in Const. P. 45/2007



in Const. P. 111/2012





in Const. P. 123/2012






in Const. P. 31/2011
  




in Const. P. 45/2007
  


in Const. P. 111 & 123/2012
 











  
 
in Const. P. 31/2011
    

1
   







  



in Const. P. 45/2007










in Const.P.111/2012
 


 







  
 
in Const. P. 123/2012
     






in CMS No. 4840/2012 

 

  






 




   





    





 

  

2012

 28
  



 
 
 
1973

    
 

2

    
 
  

   

17

       
   


   

  






  



1







 
 

 
  
2

 










  

 
 
 


  
 
 

   



         

 
  

 


 

 
  


3


 
   
  

2
     



  


(Electoral Roll 1974
  
219  218
  

   
 

218 (3)
     
Act 1974)
  
    



   

   
219
   

 
   

   
    
   
  


 
   


 





 
45/2007

  




3
       
184/3
  

          
 




 
 

3


      

 
51/2

   





 
       




     

 
10-08-2007






   

 2006

    

   
2 



  
   
2007
   

2007

20



2007

 03


  
  


140




  
 
    
     


 
   



  
         
     
2002
    
 
 
 
71.86
 


   

5,21,02,428
  


  
 
   



 
   
  



 

 


    
 


 

  

  

  


  



   
 





 
 
  
    
 

  

    





  
    


  
   
04-10-2007



 
4
 
  
 
       

   

 

27


 



  
   

80



4

 
   

 
  



   

25-10-2007
    





 

 


 




07-04-2011

5
 



    
   
31/2011
    

 



 




    

    
 

  



     
 


  
    
 

04-07-2011





       


   

 


  
 





  
 


   

 

 



 
87/2011


 

 




6
 


    


 

    

    



  


  

PLD 2012 SC
  


     

   



    
681
   
 


 (j) 
 
   

     
  

 
  

     

    




 



   
 



 
 





7
 
 

   
   
111/2012
 
     

      


  
 





  
   

    
 

 
      

5
  
  
   
 
    
 

    
22-11-2012
  
123/2012




   
 
CMA No. 4840/2012
 
      

     





   


 
  
   
    








  

 

    
8 



        
 




 
  


        
9

  
 
  


 
 


  
    

   


        
  
  


   


     
  




E-43 PECHS, Block 2,


      
 

  

 
663

 
120Sq Yards

 Karachi
 
   
  
  


      

    

  
CMA No. 4830/2012
     

  



  
     
  



     
    
   
 

 
 
  
   



04-07-2011
 
 


  
  

 


 
 

   
 


        
 

  

    
  
    
 

6

 











 


 
 








   
 



45/2007
 




11



 
 
 







    
   
  
184/3
  

      
  


 



 
  
21-11-2012
 
 

 
   
 
   


   
 


 



 
  



16-08-2007
 
  

45/2007
  





     
      
 

 


  
  



10-08-2007
     
       
    
12
   






 
  


 

  

 
  
  


 

  
   
   


  

AIR 985 SC 1233
       



 
  
AIR 997 Madras 125


 
  

  
       
13
    

 
 
 

  

    

  


         
   

 
 
  



   



 
    
 
  

   


  

  
      

7

       
     
     
14
  
 
 



 
 
    

 









1974
  
 


  



   
  



    
184(3)

     



 
184(3)


  

 

 
        
     

  

  

 


  
184(3)
     


 





 


       
  



      

 

  
 
(PLD 1988 SC 416)
  



2012
   


  
 

(PLD 1993 SC 473)



   








   




SCMR 455

 
(PLD 2012 SC 132)
  

 

184(3)





   
15


   






 

       
 
 




 


  
184(3)
   
33 
 




   


 



 
  
  
   


(PLD 1988 SC 416)
   



  
 (PLD 1989 SC 166)
  



    
(PLD 1993 SC 473)


  
 

 

 
 

8




 



  


25
    

    




            




  
 

 



  






  


   
 
34


   




       

All Pakistan Newspapers Society VS
 (PLD 2011 SC 997)
 

  
(PLD 2012 SC 01) Federation of Pakistan
     
  
     
  


      


   


 



 
184(3)
   




 

  
 
   

 
(PLD 1988 Sc 1263)
 

 
 
  



    
(PLD 1999 SC 57)
      


(PLD 1999 SC

  

(PLD 1999 SC 395)


  
 (PLD 2010 SC 265)
   

504)
   
 
(PLD 2006 SC 602)
 


(PLD
   



  
     


    


  
2011 SC 775)

 

  
184(3)
  
  

 

    
       


 

    

  


  



 

   





      

    
    



  


  



9
     
   

  
  
16
 

     
 

 







  
  
  
218(3)
   
17
219

    


    
  

  


  

 







 

 

18
     


 


2002

      


 

XX-

 258

I-

 239



20




XLII-

130

I-

89



42






2012

        










1610634
5
712916
897443



2030689
6
901466
1129217


1067603
3
464342
603258


1416411
12
560314
856085


726881
5
300314
426562

6851948
31
2939352
3912565

 

  
 4654/2012 

   
 19
10
  
 

 2011
 

 
 

-

 


 
    

 
 
8 
     
  


 
 

  


 2011

      
 
 

    

 

 


        


20

 

82%
     
  
    

       

   



600

120
  
   



 
  

    

  
2011
  

 
21
   
23
    
   







 
    
   
23
 



     


22
  

 





 


(PLD 2011 SC 997)
     

  
     
   


"
   


    







      

     
     

11
   
 
   
   

   
    

 
 
      
 



     
 
   

"








  


 
 

  




  
  
     

 
  



    
  

     
 



26 
 


 

 



    

  
       
     

  


 

 

      










  
 
27
 
  

  

 
 

      
 
 

     


   

  



   
 
  
 

" 92
  
  

    
    

 
  

    
 
   

       

  



  









 

    

  





12
  
 


2.5





  


  


 
  

 

 
   

  


 

 

 

 
 



  

            

   
      
  

   



 








Foreigner Act
       


   
    
NADRA




      
 



 NADRA



 

NADRA

 
  


  
   





  

NADRA
 

       




  

  

"
 

    


  


    



     
23
 
 

   
 



no
   
 
   
 


40 30
 

  
go areas


 



 

   
  

 

  
  



     

   


  
  



  




13
 

 




  
24
 

 
   

   
  
  



 
     

  
  




 
 
  

 
    

 

  
 
 







 
     
    

25

   
 

 
 

 
  






    
.67 
  
 

   



 
  
    




  




  
    
 




 
  


 
   



  


 
  
 
219
   
26

  
  

 
1974


  
   
  
 


   
04-07-2011
 




 
     
   

i



 
 


15,028,808
 

2,140,015




14
2,491,090
 
 


 

6,469,310



 
MNIC
 

11,056,775
  
MNIC
 

37,185,998
 

    


  
36

 


ii
     

       

 
   
2011

 16
   
2011

18
            






     


   

   
2 0 1 1

1 6
   







      

      
2012


 

2011



  






"

"
    
"
 
"


-:

 

The World Book Dictionary, Volume One




  



1


  
  
2




  
  
 
 

:
 


3





      

4
The Major Law Lexicon



   
  


   


  


  

  
  

"

"
The American Heritage (R) Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.
15

 
   
   
    

(n)
1




   
 
 
 

(a)
2












  



(a)
3

  


 

 
   
  
(a)
4


 




 

      
 
  

 
(a)
5
"

"
an-nu-al (an'yoo-al)
Adj.


"

"
   


 
1

  


   
    
2
 



  

 
/


3
n.




   
  

1

  
 
  



 


2
Late Latin
  
Old French "Annual / 

"
  
Middle ]

 
Indo-European

annua-lis, 
Collins English Dictionary





 
  

      
 




 



16
 
 

 
 
  
 
/

 
  

 




  
  
/
  
(3)
    
/


   

 
 
 annus
  
annualis
 


 
annus


 
 







  





  




 




   



   
     
  
 


      
  
   



     

   


     

 1913
 


 

    






 

 



 
    
  

 
  


shak


 

  



  


      
 
 


 Bacon


 


  
  

;

 





 

.



;


  










  
 






 National Insurance Company vs. Life Insurance Corporation (AIR
17
  

  
 
     
1963 SC 1171)  

    

Prem Kevalram Shahani v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1989

  
218


  
Karachi 123) 
 


3

 
 

(2) 
(1)



  
   
 





 
     
  
 

  

   
219
   


 
   
   
 
 



    




 

 






   


 
   


  
  


 
  
 

     


    
1974 
    
219
 


  

      

      





218
  
   



 




 


220
 

     

      

27
   
   
    
 



         


     

   
 
28
  
219

  

   
   

     

        
1974 




   
    

218





 

    
 

18



  

 
       

  


        
  



  
 
 




111123/2012  45/2007
   




29

31/2011
 










 
   


  



19
