Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 PLD 286
Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-01-12
Parties: All Pakistan Muslim League thr. its Chairman Jahan Zarin vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 2024-01-12, officially reported as 2024 PLD 286. In this matter between All Pakistan Muslim League thr. its Chairman Jahan Zarin and Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as PLD 2024 Supreme Court 286
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Mussarat Hilali, Qazi Faez Isa (C.J) Title:All Pakistan Muslim League thr. its Chairman Jahan Zarin vs Election
Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad Case No.: C.M.A.10566/2023 Im C.A.NIL/2023 Date of Judgment:2024-01-12 Reported As: 2024 SCP 17, PLD 2024 Supreme Court 286 Result: Appeal Dismissed Judgment ORDER Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. This civil appeal was not numbered by the office because Mr. Jahan Zarin had described himself as Chairman of All Pakistan Muslim League ('APML') and filed the appeal under the name of APML, which no longer existed as a political party. Mr. Jahan Zarin was a party before the Election Commission of Pakistan ('ECP') as such he could have filed this appeal under his own name, therefore, whilst sustaining the office objection, we allow CMA No.10566 of 2023 to the extent that Mr. Jahan Zarin be treated as the appellant. Resultantly, we proceeded to hear Mr. Jahan Zarin, through his learned counsel Mr. Sher Aman. 2. This appeal is filed under section 202(6) of the Elections Act, 2017, which enables filing of a direct appeal before the Supreme Court. 3. The order of the ECP assailed before us concludes as under: '25. In view of the above discussion and scanning of record, the Commission holds and decides that there are no elected office bearers of APML, therefore, the party is virtually non-existent. Due to non-existence of the elected office bearers in accordance with the party constitution and the provisions of the Act of 2017, the party has been unable to provide valid consolidated statements of accounts of last Four (4) years which is requirement of the Article 17(3) of the Constitution read with Section 210 of the Act of 2017. The APML has failed to fulfill the requirement of section 209 and 210 of the Act of 2017 which is one of the pre-requisite for enlistment of a political party in terms of section 202. In exercise of powers conferred upon under Article 218(3) read with section 202(5) of the Act ibid, APML, as a political party is hereby delisted and the applications for allocation of symbol
---
## Page 2
submitted by unauthorized and self styled office bearers are rejected. Resultantly the symbol Eagle becomes available for allocation in accordance with law.' 4. It appears that APML was not singled out and similar action was also initiated against other political parties, as can be seen from the following portion of the impugned order of the ECP: 'In this regard we will consider as a precedent that the Commission issued notices to all the previously enlisted political parties to provide documents mentioned under Section 201, 202, 209, and 210 and other requirements mentioned under Section 202(2) of the Act of 2017. 284 (Two Hundred And Eighty Four) political parties were delisted by the Commission vide order dated 11.01.2018. Similar notice was issued to APML but at the time of de-enlistment of political parties the matter regarding submissions of statements of accounts under Section 210 of the Elections Act, 2017 was pending before the Commission.' 5. Learned counsel was asked whether the statements of accounts, which were required by the ECP, were provided but he could not refer to a single document in this regard; further establishing that the requisite statements were not provided to the ECP. 6. Learned counsel was repeatedly asked to show us any illegality or unconstitutionality in the impugned order of the ECP dated 19 September 2023 but was unable to do so and there is no justification to set it aside. Accordingly, the impugned order of the ECP is sustained and this appeal is dismissed.