PERVEZ ELAHI vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN S — 2024 PLD 571 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

PERVEZ ELAHI VS ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN S. 60(2)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 17(2)---Elections for seat of Provincial Assembly---Nomination papers---Exclusive bank account for election expenses---Connotation---Nomination paper of the petitioner (candidate) was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not maintain an exclusive account for the purpose of election expenses for every seat he proposed to contest under Section 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017 ("Act")---Validity---Right to contest election is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 17(2) of the Constitution---Right to contest election being a fundamental right, the provisions in the Act including Section 60 thereof that curtail or in any manner affect this right are to be construed strictly and applied restrictively---Under Section 60(2)(b) of the Act, a candidate is to submit a declaration that he has opened an exclusive account, or dedicated an existing account, in a scheduled bank for the purpose of election expenses---Exclusivity of the required bank account is for the "purpose of election expenses", and not for the number of seats the candidate is contesting for in the elections---One exclusive bank account for the election expenses to contest for any number of seats, meets the statutory requirement---For the purpose of requiring such exclusive bank account is to ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 132(3) of the Act, which has prescribed an upper limit of expenses for election to a seat in the Senate, the National Assembly and a Provincial Assembly---If a person contests for election to more than one seats, his expenses should not exceed the aggregate of the prescribed expenses for all those seats---Stance taken by the respondents that the candidate must open a separate bank account for every seat he is contesting for, is not the intent and purpose of the law and is therefore not legally sustainable---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; impugned order as well as the orders of the Appellate Tribunal and the Returning Officer were set aside; consequently, the nomination paper of the petitioner filed for the seat of a Member of the Provincial Assembly stood accepted with the observation that the right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is the essence of a democratic society, and any undue restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 571 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case PERVEZ ELAHI VS ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN S. 60(2)(d)---Elections for seat of Provincial Assembly---Nomination papers---Alleged misdeclaration of asset in Form B---Nomination paper of the petitioner (candidate) was rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to mention an asset, i.e., 10 marla land, in the statement of his assets to be accompanied with the nomination paper through Form B under Section 60(2)(d) of the Elections Act, 2017---Validity---According to the mutation placed before the Court the land was purchased on 30.11.2023, whereas the requirement of Section 60(2)(d) is that the statement of assets and liabilities should be as on the preceding 30th day of June i.e., 30.06.2023 and, therefore, the alleged procurement of the asset in question, though denied by the petitioner, has no bearing on the nomination paper filed by the petitioner---Perusal of the Form B submitted by the petitioner clearly shows that the listed assets are as on 30.06.2023---Even otherwise, the petitioner has categorically denied that he has purchased the said property and no summary inquiry has been conducted by the Returning Officer (RO) to ascertain the factual position under section 62(9) of the Act---Rejection order of the RO was therefore not legally sustainable on this ground---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed; impugned order as well as the orders of the Appellate Tribunal and the Returning Officer were set aside; consequently, the nomination paper of the petitioner filed for the seat of a Member of the Provincial Assembly stood accepted.

PERVEZ ELAHI vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN S — 2024 PLD 571 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD