SHAUKAT MAHMOOD vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN (ECP) through Secretary ECP, Islamabad Rules made under a s

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

SHAUKAT MAHMOOD VS ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN (ECP) through Secretary ECP, Islamabad Rules made under a statute---Interpretation---Rules have to be consistent with the statute under which they are framed and with all that is deemed to be incorporated in the statute---Rule making authority cannot clothe itself with power which the statute itself does not give---Since the Rules are the wheels on which the hypothetical vehicle of the Act runs, it is tantamount that both work in harmony; otherwise, the Act would not be able to serve the purpose for which it was passed by the legislature. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 653 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case SHAUKAT MAHMOOD VS ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN (ECP) through Secretary ECP, Islamabad Ss. 60(2)(b), 62(9)(c) & 62(9)(d)---Election Rules, 2017, R. 51---Election for seat of National Assembly---Nomination papers, acceptance of---Joint bank account for elections expenses---Permissibility---In terms of S. 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017 ('the Act') there is a requirement of a declaration that an 'exclusive' bank account, for the purpose of recording election expenses, has been opened, or an existing bank account be dedicated for the same, to be nominated for an election---However, the said section, or rather any section of the Act, does not create a distinction between an 'exclusive bank account' or a 'joint bank account'---After all, a 'joint bank account' could be 'exclusive' as well---There is nothing on the record to suggest that the 'joint bank account' which is at the forefront of the present case, was not being exclusively used by the petitioner (candidate) and his wife---Moreover, S. 60(2)(b) of the Act gave the petitioner the option to dedicate an existing bank account for recording election expenses; in this regard, the Act does not specify, once again anywhere in any section of Act, that this existing bank account cannot be a joint account---If the legislature so desired that this exclusive bank account be owned 'exclusively' by one individual, or that an existing account which has to be dedicated is to be solely owned by the individual seeking nomination for elections, it would have added a proviso on its own---When the legislature has already mandated that the declaration required for nomination for election will be that of opening an exclusive bank account or dedicating an existing bank account, it was beyond the legislative competence of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to require that such bank account shall not be a joint signatory account---Legislature did not envision such a bifurcation, and therefore S.R.O. No. 1793(I)/2023, dated 12.12.2023, which amended Rule 51 of the Election Rules, 2017 ('the Rules'), by adding the proviso, impinges upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and is in conflict with the Constitution, specifically the right to contest elections, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 17(2) of the Constitution---Said proviso was beyond the legislative competence of the delegate, the ECP, making it and the proviso is violative and beyond the scope of its parent and enabling statute, i.e. Elections Act, 2017---Therefore, S.R.O. No. 1793(I)/ 2023, dated 12.12.2023, which amended Rule 51 of the Rules, by adding the proviso, is in conflict and contradiction hence is not applicable to the matter at hand---Insofar as the question of vires of Rule 51 is concerned, that may be taken up in another case---Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and it was directed that the nomination papers of the petitioner (candidate) for NA-163 (Bahawalnagar) are deemed accepted and his name is deemed included in the final list of candidates for the General Elections of 2024.

SHAUKAT MAHMOOD vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN (ECP) through Secretary ECP, Islamabad Rules made under a statute — 2024 PLD 653 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD