IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Review/Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
 
 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NOS.242, 243 AND 245 OF 2012 
IN CONST. PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A. NO.3446 OF 2012 IN C.R.P.NIL/2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.311 OF 2012 IN C.M.A. 
4089/2012 IN CONST. PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A. 5113 OF 2012 IN C.R.P.NIL/2012 IN CONST. PETITION 
NO.5/2012 
AND 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.317 OF 2012 IN 
C.M.A.2492/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.4089 OF 2012 IN CONST. PETITION NO.5/2012  
AND 
C.M.A.3053 OF 2012 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.4135 OF 2012 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.4353 OF 2012 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.54 OF 2013 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO. 5/2012  
AND 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.55 OF 2013 IN 
C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.65 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. PETITION 
NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.87 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. PETITION 
NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.354 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. PETITION 
NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.1217 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.1218 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.2097 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 2 :- 
AND 
C.M.A.2592 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.2146 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.66 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. PETITION 
NO.5/2012  
AND 
C.M.A.67 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. PETITION 
NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.68 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. PETITION 
NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.85 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. PETITION 
NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.86 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. PETITION 
NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.2155 OF 2014 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
C.M.A.2108 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO.38 OF 2013 IN C.M.A.4089/2012 
IN CONST. PETITION NO.5/2012 
AND 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.71 OF 2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/ 2012 
AND 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.82 OF 2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO. 5/2012 
AND 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.90 OF 2012 IN CONST. 
PETITION NO.5/2012 
Against order dated 20.09.2012 followed by detailed judgment dated 
17.10.2012 of this Court passed in Constitution Petition No.05 of 2012. 
 
C.R.P.242 of 2012 
Dr. Ahmed Ali Shah and others Vs. Syed 
Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi and others 
 
C.R.P.243 of 2012 
Farah Naz Isfahani Vs. Syed Mehmood 
Akhtar Naqvi and others 
 
C.R.P.245 of 2012 and 
C.M.A.3446 of 2012 
Amana Buttar Vs. Syed Mehmood Akhtar 
Naqvi and others 
 
C.R.P.311 of 2012 
Begum Shehnaz Sheikh Vs. Syed Mehmood 
Akhtar Naqvi and others 
 
C.M.A.5113 of 2012 
Dr. Muhammad Ashraf Chohan Vs. Syed 
Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi and others 
 
C.R.P.317 of 2012  
Muhammad Jamil Malik Vs. Syed Mehmood 
Akhtar Naqvi and others 
 
C.M.A.4089 of 2012 
Reply of Mr. Umar Cheema, Special 
Investigative Correspondent, Daily The 
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 3 :- 
News, Islamabad 
 
C.M.As.3053, 4135 and 
4353 of 2012, 65, 87, 
1217, 1218, 66, 67, 68, 
85, 86 of 2013 and 
2155 of 2014  
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi 
Crl.O.Ps.54 and 55 of 
2013 
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi Vs. Senator 
Rehman Malik and another 
 
C.M.A.354 of 2013 
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi Vs. Federal 
Government through Secretary Law and 
others 
 
C.M.As.2097 and 2592 
of 2013 
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi Vs. Federation 
of Pakistan and others  
 
C.M.A.2146 of 2013 
Application for impleadment as Party by Pir 
Tariq Ahmed, Advocate. 
 
C.M.A.2108 of 2013 
Application on behalf of Syed Tayyab 
Hussain & others 
 
C.R.P.38 of 2013 
Ghulam Mujtaba Rai Vs. Syed Mehmood 
Akhtar Naqvi and others 
 
Crl.O.P.71 of 2012 
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi Vs. Asif Ali 
Zardari and others 
 
Crl.O.P.82 of 2014 
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi Vs. A.R. 
Rehman & others 
 
Crl.O.P.90 of 2012 
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi Vs. Nayyar 
Hussain Bukhari, Chairman Senate and 
another  
 
 
 
 
For the Petitioners: 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mian Abdul Rauf, ASC. 
(in C.R.P.242/2012) 
 
Mr. Wasim Sajjad, Sr. ASC/ 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR. 
(in C.R.P.243/2012) 
 
Nemo. 
(in C.R.P.245/2012 and C.M.A. 3446/2012 in 
C.R.P.Nil/2012) 
 
Mr. M. Munir Paracha, ASC 
a/w Begum Shahnaz Sh., Petitioner. 
(in C.R.P.311/2012) 
 
Nemo. 
(in C.M.A.5113/2012) 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
(in C.R.P.317/2012) 
 
Mr. M. Munir Paracha, ASC. 
(in C.R.P.38/2013) 
 
In Person  
(in C.M.A.3053, 4135, 4353/2012, Crl.O.P.54, 55, 
71, 82, 90/2012 and C.M.A.65, 87, 354, 1217, 
1218, 2097, 2592, 66, 67, 68, 85 and 86/2013 
and C.M.A.2155/2014.) 
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 4 :- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respondents on Notice: 
 
Mr. Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
(For Dr. Aresh Kumar) 
 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC 
(For Murad Ali Shah) 
Mr. Salman Akram Raja, ASC 
(For Arif Aziz Sheikh C.M.A.1944/2013 and for 
Dr. Asim Hussain C.M.A.3581/2013) 
 
Sardar M. Aslam, ASC 
(For Dr. Tahir Jawad & Jamil Malik) 
 
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR. 
(in C.M.A.2108/2013) 
 
Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, Sr. ASC. 
(in Crl.O.P.90/2012) 
 
In Person. 
(in C.M.A.2618/2013) 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
 
Mr. Sohail Mehmood, DAG. 
Malik Mujtaba Ahmed, Addl, Director (Law) ECP. 
Mr. Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi, in-person (in C.R.Ps.) 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
02.05.2018 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J-. The petitioners in these 
review petitions seek review of an order of this Court dated 
20.09.2012 followed by detailed judgment dated 17.10.2012. 
Through this order they were declared to be disqualified from 
being Members of the Parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora)/Provincial 
Assemblies in view of the fact that they had acquired 
citizenship of foreign States and had failed to disclose the said 
fact in their nomination papers and other documents filed 
with the competent authorities. This Court also held that they 
had made false declarations before the Election Commission 
of Pakistan while filing their nomination papers and as such 
appeared to be guilty of corrupt practices in terms of Section 
78 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1976 (RoPA). The 
Election Commission was accordingly directed to institute 
legal proceedings against them under Section 82 of the RoPA 
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 5 :- 
read with Sections 193, 196, 197, 198 & 199, PPC in 
accordance 
with 
law. 
The 
order 
directed 
the 
Parliamentarians/Members of the Provincial Assemblies who 
had been disqualified and some of whom are before us in 
these review petitions to refund all monetary benefits drawn 
by them for the period during which they occupied the public 
offices and had drawn their emoluments, etc from the public 
exchequer 
including 
monthly 
remunerations, 
TA/DA, 
facilities of accommodation alongwith other perks. These were 
required to be calculated in terms of money by the Secretaries 
of the Senate of Pakistan, National Assembly and the 
Provincial Assemblies accordingly.  
 
2. 
 
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 
review 
petitioners 
have 
unequivocally 
and 
in 
unison 
contended 
that 
they 
do 
not 
challenge 
petitioners’ 
disqualification. However, they seek fair and compassionate 
treatment in the specific facts and circumstances of these 
petitions and pray that the order under review to the extent of 
initiation of criminal proceedings and refund of salaries, 
emoluments and other monetary benefits may be recalled.  
 
3. 
 
The learned ASCs have argued that there was no 
evidence establishing mens rea against the petitioners. Mens 
rea is not established merely on the ground that they had 
filed declarations with their nomination papers in the year 
2008 to the effect that they were qualified to contest elections 
and were not disqualified. It has been stated that such 
declarations were signed by the petitioners in a bona fide 
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 6 :- 
belief that they were qualified and had made faithful 
disclosures of all facts as per the questions asked in the 
printed nomination papers. It is maintained that the 
nomination papers at the relevant time had no column 
seeking disclosure of the fact as to whether the candidate was 
a foreign citizen/dual national. It is further argued that in 
order to support a finding of guilt relating to the offence of 
corrupt practice in terms of Section 78 of the RoPA and other 
offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, the element of guilty 
intent was a sine qua non. It was totally missing in the cases 
of the review petitioners. It is submitted that at the time of 
submission of nomination papers the petitioners genuinely 
believed that they were qualified to contest elections as 
Members 
of 
the 
Parliament 
(Majlis-e-Shoora)/Provincial 
Assemblies. 
 
4. 
 
The learned ASCs for the petitioners have further 
argued that by reason of order dated 20.09.2012 which is 
sought to be reviewed, the petitioners have been subjected to 
multiple penalties including disqualification from membership 
of the Parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora)/Provincial Assemblies, 
refund/return of salaries and other monetary benefits despite 
the fact that they had participated in the legislative business 
of the Parliament/Provincial Assemblies and had earned their 
salaries and other benefits. In addition, the petitioners have 
been burdened with liability and culpability under Section 78 
of the RoPA read with Sections 193, 196, 197, 198 & 199, 
PPC. It is further argued that the declarations made by this 
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 7 :- 
Court in positive terms would gravely prejudice the due 
process rights of the petitioners as enshrined in Article 10A of 
the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 
and it would not leave any scope for the trial Court to record 
any different finding. In the presence of such declarations, 
conviction would be a fait accompli and the petitioners would 
not get a just, fair and unbiased trial.  
 
5. 
 
It has finally been argued by learned ASCs for the 
petitioners that the salaries/perquisites and TA/DA were not 
ill gotten gains. These were earned bona fide for the duration 
of the time during which the petitioners held their respective 
offices. The learned counsel have relied upon a judgment of 
this Court rendered in the case Regarding Pensionary 
Benefits of the Judges of Superior Courts (PLD 2013 
Supreme Court 829) and sought the benefit of the majority 
view which according to them adopts a humane and 
compassionate approach towards the situation. It is also 
argued that the sums received by the petitioners have already 
been spent/expended to meet personal expenses of the 
petitioners and their families. As such, the petitioners would 
be unduly burdened and face hardship in returning 
substantial sums of money which were received by them 
during a period spread over many years and many years ago 
and have since been spent.  
 
6. 
 
There is no serious contest on the part of the 
Respondents who appear to be in agreement with the ratio of 
Judges Pension case and the assertion that the penalties 
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 8 :- 
awarded to the petitioners may be rather harsh considering 
the facts and circumstances of the present cases.  
 
7. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties 
and gone through the record with their assistance. It appears 
that 
the 
petitioners 
who 
are 
mostly 
Pakistani 
nationals/citizens by birth had acquired citizenship of other 
countries with a few exceptions where they were born in 
foreign countries to Pakistani parents and had therefore 
automatically and without any positive steps on their part 
acquired nationality of their respective places of birth. It 
further appears that despite such dual citizenship/ foreign 
nationality, the petitioners filed nomination papers for 
elections 
to 
the 
Parliament 
(Majlis-e-Shoora)/Provincial 
Assemblies in the year 2008. They filed nomination papers 
which included a declaration under Oath to the effect that to 
the best of their knowledge they were not disqualified from 
contesting 
elections 
for 
the 
Parliament 
(Majlis-e-
Shoora)/Provincial 
Assemblies. 
Such 
declarations 
had 
invariably been signed by the petitioners. It is however 
equally clear that there was no specific provision/column in 
the nomination papers that required the petitioners to 
disclose their foreign nationality/dual citizenship or to state 
details of the same.  
 
8. 
 
It also appears from the record that there was no 
apparent mens rea or intent on the part of the petitioners to 
defraud or deceive the authorities at the time of filing of 
nomination papers. As such, prima facie there is inadequate 
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 9 :- 
material on the record to merit a finding of guilt regarding 
corrupt practices in terms of Section 78 of the RoPA or other 
offences under Pakistan Penal Code as has been held in the 
order sought to be reviewed. It has been argued and we have 
no reason to disbelieve that at the time of submission of 
nomination papers, the review petitioners genuinely thought 
that they were qualified to contest elections to the Parliament 
(Majlis-e-Shoora)/Provincial Assemblies and did not suffer 
from any legal or constitutional disqualification.  
 
9. 
 
We also notice that through the order sought to be 
reviewed, the petitioners have been subjected to multiple 
penalties including disqualification from membership of the 
Parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora) / Provincial Assemblies, refund 
/return of salaries and perquisites, etc despite the fact that 
they after their election took part in the legislative business 
during the legislative process. It could not therefore be lightly 
stated that they had unjustly been enriched or got ill gotten 
gains or received financial benefits by exercising fraud or 
deception. It may further be noted that the petitioners have 
also been burdened with the liability and culpability without 
following due process provided by the RoPA. Further, the 
declaration made by this Court in positive terms would not 
leave much scope for the trial Court to inquire into the 
petitioners’ 
guilt 
or 
otherwise 
and 
decide 
the 
cases 
independently. It appears that the decision of this Court may 
become the basis for action against the petitioners which 
would undoubtedly prejudice their Constitutional rights.  
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 10 :- 
10. 
 
We have also gone through the declarations 
required to be submitted with Form-I i.e. nomination paper 
under the RoPA. We are persuaded to hold that there was no 
column in the said Form requiring disclosure of foreign 
nationality/dual citizenship and there was no conscious 
effort, mens rea or guilty intent on the part of the petitioners 
to conceal or withhold such information, defraud and deceive 
the competent authorities and receive and retain ill gotten 
gains. There is also merit in the argument made by the 
learned counsel that after their election the petitioners 
participated in the legislative business, performed the services 
that they were required to perform and it would neither be 
just nor fair to hold that they had received and retained ill 
gotten gains. It is also clear that no sooner did the petitioners 
hear about the initiation of proceedings and the legal position 
as enunciated by this Court most of them tendered their 
resignations 
and 
approached 
this 
Court 
with 
such 
information.  
 
11. 
 
We have also given careful consideration to the 
ratio of the majority view taken by this Court in the Judges 
Pension case ibid and find that despite the fact that such 
judgment is arguably distinguishable, there are certain 
common and redeeming features that may be taken notice of 
in these proceedings. In the said judgment, a more humane 
and compassionate approach was adopted in so far as it was 
held that the Honourable Judges whose appointments had 
been held to be void had received salaries and perquisites, etc 
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 11 :- 
under the bona fide belief that they had validly been 
appointed. They had performed services and must have spent 
the amounts received by them by way of salaries and 
perquisites, to meet their expenses and those of their 
immediate families. Therefore, directing them to refund all 
such amounts would not only be unfair and unjust but also 
cause considerable hardship in certain cases. By the same 
token, we find that the petitioners have been visited with the 
penalty of disqualification which by itself is a serious 
punishment. However, in the facts and circumstances of the 
present cases we have not found mens rea, guilty intent or 
intention to defraud, deceive or withhold the information 
which was required to be disclosed knowing that if disclosed 
such information would debar them from contesting elections 
for the Parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora)/Provincial Assemblies. 
The direction issued for criminal prosecution for corrupt 
practices under the provisions of RoPA and Pakistan Penal 
Code and return of salaries and perquisites received by the 
petitioners many years ago has appeared to us to be rather 
harsh in the peculiar and specific facts and circumstances of 
these cases.  
 
12. 
 
None of the learned counsel for the petitioners has 
raised or pressed any other ground. The question of 
interpretation of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution has not 
seriously been raised or argued. Further, they have not 
challenged or contested petitioners’ disqualification. We, 
therefore, would not like to discuss or examine the said 
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 12 :- 
question and would defer it to be examined in an appropriate 
case and proceedings in future.   
 
13. 
 
In view of the foregoing, the order of this Court 
dated 20.09.2012 followed by detailed judgment released on 
17.10.2012 sought to be reviewed is modified only to the 
following extent:- 
i) 
All findings recorded in the order dated 20.09.2012 
relating to disqualification of the petitioners from being 
Members 
of 
the 
Parliament 
(Majlis-e-
Shoora)/Provincial Assemblies in terms of Article 
63(1)(c) of the Constitution shall remain intact, 
unchanged, unmodified and in full force.  
 
ii) 
The finding that the petitioners appeared to be guilty 
of corrupt practices in terms of Section 78 of the RoPA 
and the direction to the Election Commission to 
institute proceedings against them under Section 82 of 
the RoPA read with Sections 193, 196, 197, 198 & 
199, PPC are hereby recalled. Any proceedings at 
whatever stage and any convictions whether or not 
implemented shall immediately and forthwith stand 
quashed, recalled and rendered null and void for all 
intents and purposes as if the same had never been 
initiated/passed/implemented. 
 
iii) 
The direction of this Court to the extent of refund of 
monetary benefits drawn by the petitioners for the 
periods during which they occupied public offices and 
had 
drawn 
their 
emoluments 
from 
the 
public 
exchequer including monthly remunerations, TA/DA, 
facilities of accommodation alongwith other perks to 
be calculated in terms of money by the Secretaries of 
the Senate of Pakistan, National Assembly and the 
Provincial Assemblies stand modified to the extent 
that each petitioner notwithstanding the amount 
actually received by him/her in the aforesaid manner 
shall deposit a token sum of Rs.500,000/- within a 
period of 30 days from the date of this order with the 
Secretaries of the Senate of Pakistan, National 
Civil Review Petitions No.242, 243 & 245 of 2012, etc 
 
-: 13 :- 
Assembly and the Provincial Assemblies as the case 
may be.  
 
iv) 
A compliance report in this regard shall be sent to the 
Registrar of this Court for our perusal in Chambers.  
 
v) 
Except and to the extent and in the manner modified 
hereinabove the order of this Court dated 20.09.2012 
shall remain intact and in full force for all intents and 
purposes.  
 
14. 
 
As a consequence, the titled Civil Review Petitions 
are disposed of and the Criminal Original Petitions are 
dismissed.  
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
ISLAMABAD, THE 
2nd of May, 2018 
ZR/* 
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
 
 
