| Case ID |
398975df-2120-4fed-8786-be04cf3ec7f3 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
No.355 of 1995 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 14, 1995 |
| Hearing Date |
Nov 14, 1995 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan refused the petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's decision dismissing the constitutional petition filed by the petitioner, Khudabakhsh, challenging the election of Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali to the National Assembly based on an outstanding bank loan. The court upheld Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which restricts challenges to elections to election petitions presented to the Election Tribunal as per the procedure determined by the Act of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). Furthermore, the discretionary relief of quo warranto was rightly refused to prevent the destabilization of parliamentary membership by allowing voters to question the qualifications of elected members years after the election. Thus, the leave to appeal was denied, maintaining the original decision of the High Court. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Khudabakhsh vs. Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a pivotal judgment addressing crucial aspects of electoral law and constitutional mandates. The petitioner, Khudabakhsh, a registered voter from Gazzi, Halqa Gandar, Tehsil Jhatpat, District Jaffarabad, contested the election of Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali to the National Assembly. The core of the dispute revolved around the allegation that Jamali was disqualified from contesting the election due to an outstanding bank loan, purportedly violating the Representation of the People Act, 1976, specifically Section 52. Additionally, the petitioner invoked Articles 225 and 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, to substantiate the challenge against the elected member.
Represented by Abdul Basir Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court, and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record, the petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto against Jamali, aiming to nullify his election on the grounds of financial disqualification. The High Court of Balochistan, however, dismissed the petition, a decision that was subsequently escalated to the Supreme Court through Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.355 of 1995.
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the legal frameworks governing election disputes. It underscored the significance of Article 225 of the Constitution, which delineates that no election to the National Assembly or Provincial Assembly can be contested except through election petitions presented to the Election Tribunal, adhering to procedures established by the Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). This statutory provision was pivotal in determining the non-maintainability of the constitutional petition filed by Khudabakhsh, as it fell outside the stipulated channels for election disputes.
Furthermore, the court deliberated on the discretionary nature of quo warranto as a legal remedy. Referring to precedents like Masudul Hassan v. Khadim Hussain and another (PLD 1963 SC. 203), the court reaffirmed that quo warranto is a discretionary tool and not an obligatory relief in such contexts. Allowing indiscriminate use of quo warranto petitions could potentially destabilize the parliamentary structure by enabling voters to challenge elected members' qualifications retrospectively, leading to legal uncertainties and undermining the integrity of democratic institutions.
The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining a structured and time-bound process for addressing election-related grievances. By upholding the High Court's dismissal of the constitutional petition and refusing the leave to appeal, the Supreme Court reinforced the doctrine of legality and procedural propriety in electoral matters. This judgment serves as a critical reference for future cases involving electoral disputes, ensuring that challenges to elections are confined within the legally prescribed frameworks, thereby safeguarding the sanctity of the electoral process and the stability of legislative bodies in Pakistan.
The case also highlights the intricate balance between individual challenges against elected officials and the collective interests of maintaining orderly and predictable governance structures. By rejecting the petitioner's approach to contest the election through constitutional avenues rather than designated electoral petitions, the Supreme Court delineated clear boundaries for legal remedies in the electoral context. This not only preserves the efficiency of the judicial process but also fortifies the democratic ethos by preventing frivolous or strategically timed challenges that could disrupt governance. Overall, Khudabakhsh vs. Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali underscores the judiciary's pivotal role in interpreting and enforcing constitutional and statutory provisions to uphold democratic integrity and institutional resilience in Pakistan. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Election Tribunal,
Supreme Court of Pakistan,
National Assembly,
Provincial Assembly,
Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament),
High Court of Balochistan
|
| Judges |
AJMAL MIAN,
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Basir Qureshi,
Ch. Akhtar Ali,
Nemo
|
| Petitioners |
KHUDABAQSH
|
| Respondents |
Mir ZAFARULLAH KHAN JAMALI
|
| Citations |
1997 SLD 633,
1997 SCMR 561
|
| Other Citations |
Masudul Hassan v. Khadim Hussain and another (PLD 1963 SC. 203)
|
| Laws Involved |
Representation of the People Act, 1976,
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
|
| Sections |
52,
225,
199
|