444/2019 Const. P. Aam Loeg Ittehad & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Election Commission of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)

Sindh High Court2020

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan

Share on WhatsApp
444/2019 Const. P. Aam Loeg Ittehad & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Election Commission of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) Sindh High Court Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan Order Date: 12-JUN-20 A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, has pronounced the judgment on 12.06.2020 filed by Aam Log Ittehad, through its Secretary General Azhar Jamil and Mr. Wajihuddin Ahmed (former Judge of Hon?ble Supreme Court of Pakistan) in his capacity as Human Rights and Political Activist, challenging the appointment of respondents No.2 to 5, Justice (Retired) Shakeel Ahmed Baloch, former Judge, Balochistan High Court; (ii) Justice (Retired) Irshad Qaiser, former Judge, Peshawar High Court; (iii) Justice (Retired) Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi, former Judge Lahore High Court; & (iv) Abdul Ghaffar, a former bureaucrat, who according to petitioners, have been appointed in violation of Article 207 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which provides that "a person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court shall not hold any office of profit in the service of Pakistan, not being a judicial or quasi-judicial office or the office of Chief Election Commissioner or of Chairman or member of a law commission or of Chairman or member of the Council of Islamic Ideology, before the expiration of two years after he has ceased to hold that office". This being a case of first impression on the subject constitutional and legal points has been decided through this detailed judgment by Hon?ble Bench in the following terms: "22. We would, therefore, sum up our findings on various constitutional and legal grounds agitated by the petitioners and the objections as to maintainability of instant petition raised by the respondents, in the following terms: (i) Petitioners have the locus standi to file instant constitutional petition in the nature of quo-warranto under Article 199(i)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for the reason that any person, who may not be an aggrieved party, can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto so that a High Court may examine the validity of an appointment to a public office, on constitutional and legal grounds. In view of our detailed finding as recorded in Para: 9 to 12 hereinabove, the objections raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability of instant petition on various grounds, including: (i) locus standi of petitioners to file instant petition; (ii) mala fide on the part of the petitioners; (iii) latches; and (iv) lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, are hereby declared to be without any substance, hence over-ruled. ii) Office of Election Commission of Pakistan is a "quasi-judicial office", therefore, bar of expiration of two years in terms of Article 207(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, would not be attracted in the case of appointment of retired judges of Supreme Court and High Court(s). Therefore, a writ of quo-warranto cannot be issued against respondents Nos. 2 to 4 being the retired Judges of different High Courts on the grounds that their appointments have been made before expiration of two years from the date when they ceased to hold office as Judges of High Courts. Accordingly, writ against respondents Nos.2 to 4 is misconceived and not maintainable. iii) As regards issuance of writ of quo-warranto against respondent No.5, a retired bureaucrat, no substantial constitutional or legal ground has been agitated, nor any sufficient material or evidence has been produced in support of the allegations of corruption, therefore, we are not inclined to conduct any inquiry or to make a probe into the allegations levelled against respondent No.5 while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199(i)(b)(ii) of the Constitution in the instant case. Accordingly, writ against respondent No.5 is not maintainable.
Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Red Notices against Foreign National Proclaimed Offender

PLJ 2024 Karachi 138 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2024

Judgment on Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act 2012

PLJ 2023 Karachi 124 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2023

Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2013 explained in a Judgment

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 154 · Sindh High Court · 2022

Article 140- Cross Examination of a Witness

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020

Re-Examination is more important than Examination in Chief

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020