IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ 
Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
 
Civil Petitions No.240 & 241 K of 2013 
[on appeal against the order dated 03.05.2013, passed 
by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in Constitution 
Petitions No.D-1644 & D-1721 of 2013] 
 
 
Sadiq Ali Memon Son Of Late Abdul Hameed, 
Resident Of Mohallah Islampur, Ward No.3, Union 
Council No.2, Thatta. 
 
Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
Returning Officer, NA-237, Thatta-I & others 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner 
(in both cases) 
: Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi, Sr. ASC  
Mr. Khalid Javed Khan, ASC 
 
 
 
For Respondent No.4 
(in CP#240-K/13) 
: Peer Tariq Ahmed, Advocate, in person 
 
 
 
For Respondent No.4 
(in CP#241-K/13) 
: Mr. Faisal Kamal, ASC  
 
 
 
For Respondents No.1-3 
: Proforma Respondents 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 23.05.2013 
 
ORDER 
GULZAR AHMED, J.—These two Civil Petitions for leave to 
appeal have been filed against a common order dated 03.05.2013 
passed by a learned 3 Member Bench of the High Court of Sindh 
at Karachi, by which the two Constitution Petitions (C.Ps.No.D-
1644 & D-1721 of 2013) were disposed of setting aside the order 
dated 
13.04.2013 
passed 
by 
the 
Election 
Tribunal 
and 
C.Ps.No.240 & 241 K of 2013.doc 
- 2 - 
 
consequently maintaining the order dated 06.04.2013 of the 
Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers of the 
petitioner. 
2. 
 
Brief facts of the matter are that the petitioner has 
submitted nomination papers for contesting General Election 
2013 as a candidate from NA-237 Thatta-I.  The respondent Peer 
Tariq Ahmed filed objection on the nomination form contending 
that the petitioner at the time of contesting previous election to 
the seat of Provincial Assembly Sindh PS-84, Thatta-I, has filed 
declaration/affidavit and suppressed the fact of his being dual 
national viz the nationality of Canada and thus he cannot be said 
to be a sadiq, ameen and righteous person and is disqualified to 
contest the election under Article 62/63 of the Constitution.  The 
learned Returning Officer noted that the petitioner has filed a 
declaration while contesting election for the seat of PS-84, 
Thatta-I, to the effect that he fulfils qualification under Article 62 
and was not disqualified under Article 63 of the Constitution and 
on examining the record of Provincial Election Commissioner, 
Sindh, found that petitioner is holding dual citizenship and on his 
asking from the petitioner’s counsel, the counsel admitted that at 
the time of contesting previous election for the seat of PS-84, 
Thatta-I, the petitioner has made a declaration in the said 
Provincial Election despite he being a foreign citizen of Canada.  
The Returning Officer came to the conclusion that the case of the 
C.Ps.No.240 & 241 K of 2013.doc 
- 3 - 
 
petitioner is covered by disqualification under Article 63(1)(c) of 
the Constitution and further concluded that he is neither honest 
nor a righteous persons and is hit by Article 62(f) of the 
Constitution and thus his form for candidature was rejected.  The 
learned Election Tribunal while considering the Election appeal of 
the petitioner altogether ignored the finding of Returning Officer 
in respect of the petitioner earlier contesting the election of PS-
84, Thatta-I, and making a false declaration with regard to 
holding of dual nationality by him at that time but confined itself 
to the fact that the petitioner has submitted an application for 
cancellation of his citizenship on 24.09.2012 and that the 
Canadian 
authorities 
vide 
letter 
dated 
09.01.2013 
have 
communicated the petitioner that he has ceased to be a Canadian 
national w.e.f.11.12.2012 and since the petitioner has ceased to 
be the Canadian national his nomination papers ought to have 
been accepted and the Returning Officer was directed to accept 
nomination papers of the petitioner.  This order of the Election 
Tribunal was challenged by Peer Tariq Ahmed so also by Abdul 
Wahid Brohi, by two separate Constitution Petitions respectively 
D-1644 of 2013 and D-1721 of 2013 filed in the High Court of 
Sindh at Karachi.  It seems that Constitution Petition No.D-
1644/2013 was taken up by the High Court on 18.04.2013 and 
on the same day, an order was passed by which the said petition 
was dismissed.  In this order the High Court has observed that 
C.Ps.No.240 & 241 K of 2013.doc 
- 4 - 
 
respondent No.4 has submitted that the petitioner was elected to 
Sindh Assembly while he was holding dual nationality but failed to 
demonstrate that petitioner ever made a declaration to the effect 
that he did not hold dual nationality at the relevant time and 
respondent No.4 has even failed to mention the date on which 
such declaration, if fact, was filed by the petitioner.  It seems that 
a review application was filed by respondent No.4 before the High 
Court.  The said review application along with Constitution 
Petition No.D-1721/2013 came up for hearing on 03.05.2013, 
when after hearing the learned counsel for the parties the Court 
passed an order on the same date whereby the review application 
was allowed and the order dated 18.04.2013 passed in C.P.No.D-
1644/2013 was recalled and both the petitions were disposed of 
by setting aside the order of the Election Tribunal.  The High 
Court also found as an admitted fact that at the time of 
contesting the election of PS-84, Thatta-I, the petitioner has 
made a false declaration and committed perjury by categorically 
mis-stating 
on 
Oath 
that 
he 
did 
not 
suffer 
from 
any 
disqualification.  Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.   
3. 
 
Mr. Rasheed A. Razvi, learned Sr. ASC has argued the 
matter on behalf of the petitioner in both the petitions and has 
contended that the provisions of Article 62 (1) (f) of the 
Constitution, is not self executory and that there has to be a 
declaration of the Court of law holding that the petitioner is not 
C.Ps.No.240 & 241 K of 2013.doc 
- 5 - 
 
sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and ameen and there 
being no such declaration the petitioner’s nomination papers 
could not have been rejected.  In this respect, the learned 
counsel has relied upon the case of Dr. Mobashir Hassan & others 
v. Federation of Pakistan & others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 
265).  The respondent Peer Tariq Ahmed who has appeared in 
person supported the impugned order while Mr. Faisal Kamal, 
learned ASC appearing for respondent No.4 in C.P.No.241/2013 
while supporting the impugned order has also contended that the 
runner up of the election be declared to be a successful 
candidate. 
4. 
 
We have considered the submission of the learned 
counsel and have gone through the record. 
5. 
 
In the present case, admittedly the petitioner has while 
filing nomination papers for contesting By-Election of PS-84, 
Thatta-I, in 2010, filed a declaration to the effect that he fulfils 
qualification specified in Article 62 of the Constitution and is not 
subject to any disqualification specified in Article 63 of the 
Constitution.  This declaration was made by the petitioner despite 
the fact that he was holding dual nationality i.e. of Pakistan and 
also of Canada and in terms of Article 63 (1) (c) of the 
Constitution on acquiring the citizenship of a foreign state, he 
stood disqualified from being elected or chosen as a Member of 
Majlis-e-Shoora or the Provincial Assembly.  Reference in this 
C.Ps.No.240 & 241 K of 2013.doc 
- 6 - 
 
regard is made to the case of Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law & others (PLD 2012 
Supreme Court 1089), wherein this Court has observed as 
follows:- 
“The issue, whether a person holding citizenship of a 
foreign state is qualified to contest the election or not, 
had come for consideration before the Lahore High Court, 
in the case of Umar Ahmad Ghumman v. Government of 
Pakistan and others (PLD 2002 Lahore 521), wherein a 
learned Judge of this Court, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tassaduq 
Hussain Jillani, as a Judge of the Lahore High Court, held 
that :-- 
 
“38. 
The contention of the petitioner’s learned 
counsel was that the petitioner is qualified to 
contest the general election for the membership of 
the Parliament in terms of Article 62 of the 
Constitution which pertains to qualifications for a 
member of the Parliament.  According to learned 
counsel for the petitioner, in absence of any bar for 
a dual national prescribed in Article 62 of the 
Constitution, petitioner is qualified to contest the 
elections and that the disqualification enumerated 
in Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution comes into 
force only when a person has been elected as 
Member of the Parliament. 
 
39. 
The 
above 
interpretation 
of 
the 
Constitutional 
provisions 
is 
a 
rather 
over 
simplification and would lead to anomalous results.  
Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution explicitly 
mandates that “a person shall be disqualified from 
being elected or chosen as, and from being, a 
member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if he 
ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the 
citizenship 
of 
a 
foreign 
State”. 
 
Thus 
the 
disqualification comes into play the moment a 
person becomes a candidate or seeks election.  
This Court has declared petitioner to be a citizen of 
Pakistan but every citizen of a State is not allowed 
C.Ps.No.240 & 241 K of 2013.doc 
- 7 - 
 
to contest the election.  The qualifications and 
disqualifications have been enumerated in the 
Constitution and by the law of the land.  Since the 
petitioner has admittedly acquired citizenship of a 
foreign country, he is hit by the afore-referred 
provision and cannot contest elections unless, of 
course, he removes this disqualification in terms of 
rule 19 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952”. 
 
6. 
 
The matter regarding making of a false declaration by a 
candidate contesting the election for National Assembly or the 
Provincial Assembly in respect of education qualification came to 
be considered by this Court in the case reported as Malik Iqbal 
Ahmad Langrial v. Jamshed Alam & others (PLD 2013 Supreme 
Court 179), wherein the Court has observed as follows:- 
“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 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 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 
C.Ps.No.240 & 241 K of 2013.doc 
- 8 - 
 
the year 2002 but also in the year 2008 and also made 
false declaration making him liable to criminal action 
under certain provisions of PPC.  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 election of Members 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 Exchequer or be eligible to represent the 
people of Pakistan”. 
 
In our view, the test of declaration of sagacious, righteous, non-
profligate, honest and ameen as laid down in the above cited case 
in respect of educational qualification can equally be applied to 
the case of holding of dual nationality with the same result. 
7. 
 
In the case reported as Imtiaz Ahmed Lali v. Ghulam 
Muhammad Lali (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 369), this Court has 
held that disqualification once earned by a candidate, in view of 
the provisions of the Constitution and law, cannot be removed by 
a flux of time.  Keeping in view above state of law, it becomes 
C.Ps.No.240 & 241 K of 2013.doc 
- 9 - 
 
apparent that while contesting the election for the Provincial 
Assembly PS-84, Thatta-I, the petitioner has filed a declaration, 
which on its face was a false and untrue declaration which will 
bring into application the provision of Article 62 (1) (f) of the 
Constitution that he is not a sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, 
honest and ameen.  This being admitted position on the record 
which fact was also admitted by the learned counsel for the 
petitioner during the course of hearing. 
8. 
 
It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner 
that the impugned order having been passed by the High Court, 
the petitioner applied for its suspension on the ground that the 
petitioner proposes to challenge the impugned order before this 
Court and the High Court vide order dated 09.05.2013 suspended 
the operation of the impugned order till 16.05.2013 and the 
petitioner having contested the election on 11.05.2013 has 
obtained highest number of votes from his constituency and by 
dismissing this petition it will literally amount to de-seating the 
petitioner.  We are afraid that this submission has no force for 
that the petitioner was suffering from disqualification from 
entering into election process and this was so held by the High 
Court in the impugned order and it was only on the request of the 
petitioner that such an order was suspended for the period upto 
16.05.2013.  This eventuality will not make either the impugned 
C.Ps.No.240 & 241 K of 2013.doc 
- 10 - 
 
order of the High Court redundant or the disqualification suffered 
by the petitioner would be legitimized. 
9. 
 
Thus we hold that the petitioner was not qualified to 
contest the General Election of 2013 and that his contesting of 
election from NA-237, Thatta-I, is of no consequence and the 
same are set-aside.  Mr. Faisal Kamal, learned counsel for 
respondent No.4, in C.P.No.241-K/2013 has contended that in the 
wake of election of petitioner being set-aside, the runner up 
candidate namely Syed Riaz Hussain Shah Sheerazi be declared 
as a successful candidate.  We are afraid that we cannot pass 
such declaration and that in any event it seems that the Election 
Commission of Pakistan will have to hold fresh election of  
NA-237, Thatta-I, and it is directed accordingly.  These petitions 
were dismissed by the following short order:- 
“For reasons to be recorded later, the listed petitions are 
dismissed with all consequences with cost of Rs.50,000/- 
in each case, which shall be paid to Peer Tariq Ahmed, 
the objector.  The cost shall be deposited with the 
Registrar of this Court within three days from where the 
same shall be withdrawn by the objector against the valid 
receipt”. 
 
10.  
Above are the reasons for the aforesaid short order. 
 
 
 
 
 
CJ. 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad 
J. 
 
23.05.2013 
*Hashmi* 
J. 
 
Approved for reporting 
