Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 2296 2026 SLD 2296 = 2026 MLD 255
Lahore High Court
Election Petition No. 23259 of 2024, decided on 18th June, 2025.
Presented By: Anwar Hussain, J
   Imran Khan, Assistant Advocate General.        Imran Arif Ranjha Legal Advisor for
Respondent-Election Commmission of Pakistan ( ECP ).        Muhammad Shan Gul and Muhammad Usman Ghani for
Respondent No. 1/Returned Candidate.        Muhammad Imran Nawaz for
Respondents Nos. 5 and 6.

Rao OMAR HASHIM KHAN---Petitioner

VERSUS

AHMAD RAZA MANEKA and others---Respondents

Law: Elections Act, 2017

Section: 142, 144(2)(a), 145 (1)

Law: Elections Rules, 2017

Section: 145

Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017) Ss. 142, 144(2)(a) & 145 (1)---Election Rules, 2017, R.145---Election petition---Presentation---Word complete ---Scope---Applicant / returned candidate sought dismissal of petition on the ground that it was non-compliant with mandatory provisions of Ss.142(2)(a) & 144(2) of Elections Act, 2017 wherein complete list of witnesses had not been annexed---Validity---Term complete must be construed in a practical and purposive manner---Petitioner provided names of all witnesses, private as well as official---Even if affidavits of some of the witnesses were missing or particulars in respect of few others contained clerical errors, overall compliance was substantial---Law did not prescribe automatic rejection of election petition for such lapses inasmuch as the petitioner could elect not to rely on any of the listed witnesses whether his affidavit was available or not---List of witnesses and their respective affidavits were duly annexed with the petition---Witnesses were individually named and their affidavits clearly disclosed nature and scope of their proposed deposition---Any minor typographic discrepancy, such as inconsistency in parentage of witnesses or CNICs, could not obstruct identification of witnesses or understanding of their proposed evidence---Official witnesses were named, along with clear reference to the polling stations where irregularities occurred in the main petition---This had constituted sufficient justification for the purposes of R.145 or Election Rules, 2017, which was procedural and had not been listed under S.145(1) of Elections Act, 2017 as one of the provisions, breach whereof would result in summary rejection of petition---Purpose of R.145 (1) of Elections Rules, 2017 was to control irrelevant summoning of official witnesses and not to bar the petition itself---Election Tribunal held that election petition was competently presented under S.142 of Elections Act, 2017 and list of witnesses substantially satisfied S.144(2)(a) of Elections Act, 2017---Reference to official witnesses fulfilled requirement of R.145 of Election Rules, 2017 and if any objection was to be pressed to the extent of summoning of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register