 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
(Review Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
Present: 
 
 
Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani 
 
 
Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk 
 
 
Mr. Justice Mohammad Moosa K. Leghari 
 
 
Mr. Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITIONS No. 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 
59, 60, 61, 62 of 2009 IN C.Ps. No. 778, 779, 878, CA 
No.166/09 & C.PS. 803, CMA Nos.63 & 64/08 IN CMA 
No.1674-75/08 IN CP No. NIL of 2008, Crl. R. P. No.22/09 
IN Crl. O. P. 41 of 2008 
(On review from the judgments of this Court dated 25.2.2009 
passed in the above captioned petitions) 
  
 
 
 
C. R. P. Nos. 45 & 46 of 2009 IN C.P.Nos.778 & 779 of 2008 
 
Federation of Pakistan 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner 
(in both cases) 
Versus 
 
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others 
 
Respondents 
(in both cases) 
 
For the petitioner : 
Agha Tariq Mehmood Khan, DAG 
 
 
(in both petitions) 
 
 
 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Sr.ASC with 
(in both petitions) 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR (in CRP 45/09) 
 
For Respondents No.2-5:Nemo. 
(in both petitions) 
 
For Respondent No.6: 
Dr. Mohyuddin Qazi, Sr. ASC with 
(in both petitions) 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
2
 
 
C. R. P. Nos. 47 & 48 of 2009 IN C. P. Nos. 905 & 878 of 2008 
 
Federation of Pakistan 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner 
(in both petitions) 
 
Versus 
 
Syed Khurram Shah & others 
 
 
 
Respondents 
(in both cases) 
 
For the petitioner : 
Agha Tariq Mehmood, DAG with 
(in both cases) 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. AOR  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Qasuri, Sr. ASC 
(in both cases) 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, AOR 
 
For Respondent No.2: 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, ASC with 
(in both cases) 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
 
For Respondent Nos.3-5 Nemo. (in both cases) 
 
 
 
C. R. P. No. 50 of 2009 IN C.P.No.803 of 2008 
 
 
Speaker of Provincial Assembly Province of Punjab 
 
Petitioner 
 
Versus 
 
Syed Khurram Shah and others 
 
 
 
 
Respondents 
 
 
For the petitioner : 
Mr. Muhammad Raza Farooq, ASC and 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali, ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. AOR  
 
For respondent No.1: 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Qasuri, Sr. ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, AOR 
 
 
For respondent No.2: 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
 
For respondent Nos.3-5: 
Nemo. 
 
For respondent No.6: 
Agha Tariq Mehmood, DAG  
 
 
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
3
 
C.R. P. No. 51 of 2009 IN CMA No.64/08 IN CMA No.1674/08 IN CP No.Nil of 2008 
 
 
Shakeel Baig  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner 
 
Versus 
 
Noor Elahi and others 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondents 
 
 
For the petitioner : 
Mr. A. K. Dogar, ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. AOR 
 
For respondent No.1 
Dr. Mohyuddin Qazi, Sr. ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, AOR 
 
For respondent No.2: 
Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Sr. ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
 
For respondents No.3-5: 
Nemo. 
 
For respondent No.6: 
Agha Tariq Mehmood, DAG 
 
 
C.R. P. No.. 52/09 IN CMA No.63/09 IN CMA No.1675/08  
 
 
Mehr Zafar Iqbal 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner 
 
Versus 
 
Syed Khurram Shah and others 
 
 
 
 
Respondents 
 
 
For the petitioner : 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC  
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. AOR 
 
For respondent No.1 
Dr. Mohyud Din Qazi, Sr. ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, AOR 
 
For respondent No.2: 
Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Sr. ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
 
For respondents No.3-5: 
Nemo. 
 
For respondent No.6: 
Agha Tariq Mehmood, DAG 
 
 
 
 
 
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
4
 
C. R.P. Nos. 59 & 60 of 2009 IN C.P.Nos.778 & 79 of 2008 a/w CMA 
No. 1130 &  1551 of 2009 
 
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif  
 
 
 
Petitioner 
 
Versus 
 
Federation of Pakistan and others  
 
 
 
Respondents 
 
 
For the petitioner : 
Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Sr. ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR (in both cases) 
 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Agha Tariq Mehmood, DAG 
 
 
For respondent Nos.2-5: 
Nemo. 
 
For respondent No.6: 
Dr. Mohyud Din Qazi, Sr. ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ejaz M. Khan, A0R (in both cases) 
 
For the applicant: 
 
Mr. Shahid Orakzai (in person in CMAs) 
 
C. R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 IN C.P.Nos.878 & C.P.No.905/08 (CA 
No.166/09) a/w CMA No.1525 of 2009 
 
 
Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif  
 
 
 
Petitioner 
 
Versus 
 
Federation of Pakistan and others  
 
 
 
Respondents 
 
 
 
 
For the petitioner : 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, ASC 
  
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
(in both cases) 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Agha Tariq Mehmood, DAG  
in CRP No.61 & 6 in CRP No.62/09 
 
 
For respondent Nos.2-4: Nemo. (in both cases) 
 
For respondent No.5: 
Dr. Mohyud Din Qazi, Sr. ASC with 
In CRP 61 & 1 in CRP 62/09 
Mr. Ejaz M. Khan, AOR   
 
 
For the Applicant:  
Mr. Shahid Orakzai (in person in CMA) 
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
5
 
Crl. R.P. No. 22 of 2009 IN Crl.O.P.No.41/09 IN CP No.657-L of 
2008  
 
Javed Mehmood 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner 
 
Versus 
 
Syed Khurram Shah and another  
 
 
 
Respondents 
 
 
For the petitioner : 
Mr. Muhammad Raza Farooq, ASC with 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
 
 
For respondent No.1: 
Mr. Ahmed Raza Qasuri, Sr. ASC 
 
 
On Court’s Call:  
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa 
Attorney General for Pakistan.  
 
 
Dates of hearing:  
11.05.2009 to 26.5.2009 
 
 
SHORT ORDER 
 
 
Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, J.-   For reasons to be 
recorded 
in 
the 
detailed 
judgment 
later, 
Civil 
Review 
Petitions No. 59 & 60 of 2009 filed by Mian Muhammad 
Nawaz Sharif, Civil Review Petitions No. 61 and 62 of 2009 
filed by Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, Civil Review 
Petitions No. 45, 46, 47 and 48 of 2009 filed by the 
Federation of Pakistan and Criminal Review Petition No. 22 of 
2009 filed by Javed Mehmood, Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 
2009, Civil Review Petitions No. 51 and 52 of 2009 filed by 
Shakeel 
Baig 
and 
Mehar 
Zafar 
Iqbal 
and 
Civil 
Misc. 
Application No. 1130, 1551 and 1525 of 2009 filed by Shahid 
Orakzai are being disposed of by this short order. 
2. 
Petitioner Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (in Civil 
Review Petition No. 59 & 60 of 2009) filed his nomination 
papers for N.A. 123 Lahore. The only objection petition filed 
by Mian Akhlaq Ahmad @ Guddu was dismissed vide order 
dated 5.5.2008, inter alia, on the ground that the objection 
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
6
petition had 
not 
been 
supported 
by 
any 
documentary 
evidence despite the opportunities given to the objector. This 
order was challenged in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal 
comprising of two learned Judges of the High Court. However, 
on 27.05.2008 the said objector withdrew his appeal but on 
the same day the other candidate Noor Elahi filed an 
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with the prayer that 
he might be allowed to be transposed as appellant. This 
application was dismissed with the observation that he might 
file a separate appeal, if so advised. Later on, he filed a time 
barred appeal on 28.05.2008 (last date for filing appeal was 
24.05.2008). In the meanwhile, one Syed Khuram Shah had 
also 
laid 
information 
under 
section 
14(5-A) 
of 
the 
Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to 
as ‘the Act’] through an application dated 26.05.2008 alleging 
that Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was disqualified in the 
light of the said information.  
3. 
Petitioner Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif (in 
Civil Review Petition No. 61 & 62 of 2009) filed his 
nomination papers to contest the elections for the seat of 
Provincial Assembly Punjab for the Constituency of PP 48 
Bhakkar-II. Only one person namely Malik Nazar Abbas filed 
an objection petition on the grounds that the candidate had 
defamed the judiciary by criticizing the then District & 
Sessions Judge; that his nomination papers were rejected in 
the General Elections on 01.12.2007; that he along with his 
nomination papers had filed a false declaration; that he was 
not qualified to contest the elections in view of Article 63 (1) 
(g) of the Constitution read with section 99 of the Act. This 
objection 
was 
dismissed 
and 
nomination 
papers 
were 
accepted on 16.05.2008. The said objector did not challenge 
this order but on 27.05.2008 Syed Khurum Shah filed a 
petition under section 14(5-A) of the Act purporting to lay 
information against Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif to the 
effect that he was disqualified to be elected as member of the 
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
7
Assembly on the ground that he was guilty of defaming the 
judiciary; that he was propagating against the sitting Chief 
Justice and the Judges who had taken oath under the 
Provisional Constitutional Order, 2007; was attempting to 
divide the judiciary and was willful defaulter of, “seve ral 
loans running into billions”.  
4. 
The learned Appellate Tribunal (comprising of two 
learned Judges of the High Court) consolidated both the 
cases and gave split opinions. While one learned Judge 
dismissed the appeals and declared both the petitioners to be 
qualified to contest the elections, the other learned Judge 
declared both of them to be disqualified and rejected the 
nomination papers. On account of this split opinion, the 
appeals remained undecided (though as per the Election 
Schedule, the same had to be decided by 31.05.2008). The 
Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan declared that since 
the appeals/petitions filed by respondents against acceptance 
of nomination papers had not been decided by the afore -
mentioned cut-off date, the same shall be deemed to have 
been rejected. Respondent Syed Khuram Shah challenged this 
order by way of two separate writ petitions (Writ Petitions No. 
6469 & 6470 of 2008), while Noor Elahi, the rival candidate, 
also filed Writ Petition No. 6468 of 2008 against acceptance 
of nomination appers of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif. 
These writ petitions were allowed by separate judgments of 
even date by the learned High Court. In the case of Mian 
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, the Court held that he was 
disqualified to contest the elections as he was:- 
(i) 
a 
convict 
in 
terms 
of 
the 
judgment 
of 
Accountability Court in Reference No.2 of 2000 
dated 22.7.2000 under section 9-A(v) of the 
National Accountability Bureau Ordinance; 
(ii) 
had scandalized, abused and ridiculed the 
judiciary; and  
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
8
(iii) 
had sworn a false affidavit attached with his 
nomination papers to the effect that he was 
qualified to contest the elections.”  
 
5. 
However, the same learned Bench though accepted 
the petition against Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif but 
held that the information laid under section (5-A) of the Act 
could not be treated as appeal and the Chief Election 
Commissioner was directed to constitute another Appellate 
Tribunal (comprising of three Judges of the High Court) to 
decide the said application. The afore -mentioned judgments 
of the learned High Court were challenged in Civil Petitions 
No. 778 and 779 of 2008 and Civil Petition No. 878 of 2008, 
filed by the Federation of Pakistan, Civil Petition No. 905 of 
2008 (converted into C.A. No. 166 of 2009) filed by Syed 
Khurrum Shah, Civil Petition No. 803 of 2008 filed by 
Speaker Provincial Assembly Punjab, Civil Petition No. 657-L 
of 2008 and C.M.A. No. 471-L of 2008 in Civil Petition No. 
NIL of 2008 filed by the Chief Secretary Punjab and C.M.A. 
No. 
95 
of 
2009 
filed 
by 
Shahid 
Orakzai 
against 
the 
petitioners. Although the writ petition filed by Syed Khurrum 
Shah had been accepted yet the latter filed the civil petition 
praying 
that 
since 
the 
order 
of 
the 
Chief 
Election 
Commissioner dated 1.6.2008 was set aside, the Court 
should have de -notified the membership of Mian Muhammad 
Shahbaz Sharif which had emanated on account of the order 
of Chief Election Commissioner dated 1.6.2008. This Court 
vide the judgment under review while accepting the Civil 
Petition No. 905 of 2008 filed by Syed Khuram Shah 
dismissed all the connected petitions. Reversing the judgment 
of the High Court in the case of Mian Muhammad Shahbaz 
Sharif, he was disqualified to contest the elections. 
6. 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners 
and for the respondents, the learned Attorney General and 
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
9
Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan and have given anxious 
consideration to the submissions made.  
7. 
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, 
we hold as under:- 
(i) 
That the judgments under review i.e. of the 
Lahore High Court dated 23.06.2008 and of this 
Court dated 25.02.2009 are ex-parte on account 
of 
which 
certain 
factual 
aspect 
and 
legal 
provisions having bearing on the issues raised, 
were not brought to the notice of the Court and 
therefore 
were 
not 
considered 
leading 
to 
miscarriage of justice which has been found by 
us to be errors apparent on the face of record 
warranting review. 
(ii) 
Realizing 
the 
exceptional 
and 
extraordinary 
events relating to unconstitutional removal of 
Judges of the Superior Courts which in the 
judgment under review has been described as, 
““enforced by a brutal force, by deviating from 
constitutional 
provisions,” 
triggering 
an 
unprecedented 
nationwide 
movement, 
culminating in the restoration of those Judges, 
and during the interregnum, non-appearance of 
petitioners before the Courts then constituted 
could neither be termed as contumacious nor 
reflecting acquiescence, the findings of fact 
rendered on such assumptions merit to be 
interfered with in the review jurisdiction.  
(iii) 
That both the appeals filed under section 14(5) 
of the Act and the information laid or directed 
against the acceptance of nomination papers 
(under section 14(5A) of the said Act) were 
mandated to be decided by or before 31s t of May 
2008, the period fixed for deciding the appeals 
in the Schedule issued by the Chief Election 
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
10 
Commissioner 
under 
section 
11 
read 
with 
section 14(5) of the said Act. Since the appeals 
were not decided by then, the order of the Chief 
Election Commissioner holding that the appeal 
stood dismissed was in accord with section 
14(6) of the Act which stipulated that, “an 
appeal not disposed of within the period 
specified in sub section (5) shall be deemed to 
have 
been 
dismissed.” 
The 
finding 
that 
information laid under section 14(5A) of the said 
Act could remain pending and decided beyond 
the said date fixed for disposal of appeals was 
not in consonance with the legislative intent.  
(iv)  
The last date for disposal of appeal against the 
acceptance 
of 
nomination 
papers 
was 
31.05.2008 
and 
thereafter 
the 
Appellate 
Tribunal had become functus officio. The order 
of 
the 
Chief 
Election 
Commissioner 
dated 
01.06.2008 to the effect that since the appeals 
had not been decided within the afore -referred 
cut-off date, the same were deemed to have  been 
rejected (in terms of sub-section (6) of section 
14 of the said Act) was passed with jurisdiction. 
The 
learned 
High 
Court 
not 
only 
allowed 
respondents’ writ petitions against this order 
but while doing so, passed two inconsistent 
judgments of even date i.e. while in the case of 
Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, it held that 
the source information/petition (under sub-
section (5A) of section 14 of the Act) shall be 
deemed to be pending before the Appellate 
Tribunal comprising of three Judges of the High 
Court to be constituted by the Chief Election 
Commissioner, whereas in the case of Mian 
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
11
Muhammad 
Nawaz 
Sharif 
declared 
him 
disqualified to contest the elections. 
(v)  
The mandate of Article 225 of the Constitution 
has not been appreciated in the context of the 
instant cases. This Article places a bar to 
challenge an election dispute except through an 
election 
petition 
under 
the 
law 
i.e. 
the 
Representation 
of 
Peoples 
Act, 
1976. 
In 
exceptional 
circumstances, 
however, 
the 
qualification or disqualification of a candidate 
can be challenged under Article 199 of the 
Constitution provided the order passed during 
the election process is patently illegal, the law 
has not provided any remedy either before or 
after 
the 
election; 
and 
the 
alleged 
disqualification is floating on record requiring 
no probe and enquiry. In the cases in hand, the 
issues of unpaid loans, of court contempt and of 
filing false affidavit were disputed questions of 
fact which could not have been adjudicated 
upon in the proceedings under Article 199 of the 
Constitution 
and 
even 
the 
material 
placed 
before the Court was not sufficient to render the 
impugned findings.  
(vi) 
That the ‘Presidential Pardon’, in the case of 
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif stood admitted 
by the Federation of Pakistan through the 
statement made by the Deputy Attorney General 
before the High Court, before this Court during 
the hearing of the main petition and in the 
instant review petition and even by the learned 
Attorney General for Pakistan who appeared in 
these review proceedings.  To allege that it was 
conditional or qualified pardon required deeper 
probe which exercise entailed factual enquiry. 
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
12
Similarly, the questions whether petitioners 
were 
hit 
by 
Article 
63(h) 
and 
(l) 
of 
the 
Constitution or by section 99 of the Act could 
also not have been decided by the High Court or 
by 
this 
Court 
in 
writ 
jurisdiction. 
The 
judgments under review therefore are not in 
accord with the law laid down by this Court in 
the cases reported as Election Commission of 
Pakistan through its Secretary v. Javaid Hashmi 
and others (PLD 1989 SC 396), Ghulam Mustafa 
Jatoi 
v. 
Addl. 
District 
& 
Sessions 
Judge/Returning Officer N.A. 158, Naushero 
Feroze and others (1994 SCMR 1299) and Let. 
Gen. 
(R) 
Salahuddin 
Tirmizi 
v. 
Election 
Commission of Pakistan (PLD 2008 SC 735 at 
763). 
(vii) That one of the onerous functions of the 
Supreme Court is to protect the constitution 
and to sustain democracy. Democracy is not 
merely holding of periodical elections or of 
governance by legislative majority. It is a multi-
dimensional politico-moral concept epitomizing 
the abiding values of equality, human dignity, 
tolerance, enjoyment of fundamental rights and 
due process of law. Whether it is the issue of 
denial of a substantive right or of construing a 
statutory 
provision, these 
principles 
should 
weigh 
with 
the 
Court. 
Article 
4 
of 
the 
Constitution is a restraint on the legislative, 
executive and judicial organs of the State to 
abide by the rule of law. Abdication of this 
awesome responsibility by any organ leads to 
arbitrariness 
and 
injustice. 
These 
in 
our 
estimation are canons of substantive democracy 
embodied in our Constitution which, inter alia, 
C.R.P. Nos. 59 and 60 of 2009 
C.R.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2009 and others 
13
we have kept in view while exercising the power 
of judicial review. 
 
8. 
For what has been discussed above, Civil Review 
Petitions No. 59 and 60 of 2009 filed by Mian Muhammad 
Nawaz Sharif and Civil Review Petitions No. 61 and 62 of 
2009 filed by Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and Criminal 
Review Petition No. 22 of 2009 filed by Javed Mehmood are 
allowed and all the remaining civil review petitions and civil 
miscellaneous applications are being disposed of as not 
maintainable. Consequently, the judgments of the learned 
Lahore High Court dated 23.06.2008 (in W.P. Nos. 6468, 
6469 and 6470 of 2008) and of this Court under review dated 
25.02.2009 (in civil petitions captioned above) are set aside 
and the orders of the Returning Officer accepting nomination 
papers of the petitioner Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif dated 
15.05.2008 and Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif dated 
16.05.2008 and the order of the Chief Election Commissioner 
dated 1.6.2008 are restored.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad. 
May 26, 2009 
Khurram Anis 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
