The petitioner filed his nomination papers for the seat of Provincial Assembly PP-271 Bahawalpur before Respondent No, 1, the Returning Officer. At the, time of, scrutiny Respondent No, 2 raised an objection that at one stage the petitioner had been convicted under Section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court, therefore, he was disqualified to participate in the election. While sustaining the objection, the Returning Officer proceeded to reject his nomination papers. The petitioner being aggrieved thereof filed an election appeal which was dismissed on 12.12.2007. Against the dismissal of his appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant petition.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Returning Officer proceeded to reject the nomination papers of the petitioner in terms of provisions of Section 99(1)(g) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 which was erroneous and in complete departure from the accepted dictates of law regarding interpretation of statutes. In furtherance of his argument the learned counsel contended that the disqualification emanating from his conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act could not effect the petitioner's right to contest the elections after expiry of 5 years of the petitioner's conviction. If the interpretation as placed by the Presiding Officer as well as the learned Election Tribunal is accepted then the petitioner would be deprived forever from contesting any election in future and the same would be contrary to the spirit of section (1) of Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act,1976.
3. We have heard the learned counsel and have given anxious thought to the arguments advanced by him.
4. In the given facts and circumstances the main point which needs to be consideration is whether the petitioner suffers from a disqualification or not on account of his conviction?
5. Amendment was made in Article 63(h) of the Constitution by the Legal Framework Order, 2002 whereby the period of disqualification was omitted. Protection was given to the Legal Framework Order, 2002 by virtue of Article 270-AA of the Constitution on account of 17th Amendment in the Constitution brought about on 31st December, 2003. Amendment was also made in Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and according to sub-section (1) clause (g), if a person is convicted for a crime involving moral turpitude, etc. he is not qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of an Assembly.
6. Although conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976 does not find mentioned as disqualification under Article 63 of the Constitution, however, the language couched in Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act and Article 63 of the Constitution as well as 8-D(1)(h) and 8-D(2)(h) of the Conduct of General Election Order, 2002 as well as. Section 99(1)(g) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 is unambiguous and clear in all respects and, therefore, legal effect must be given to it. Since the provision regarding permission to contest election after a lapse of 5 years from incurring disqualification has been omitted, therefore, the disqualification incurred by the petitioner is permanent in nature in view of Article 63(h) of the Constitution, Section 8-D(1)(h) and 8-D (2)(h) of the Conduct of General Election Order, 2002 as well as Section 99(1) (g) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 the provisions of which are fully attracted to the case of the petitioner. No illegality, irregularity or error has been found by us in the order of the learned Election Tribunal impugned in this petition calling for interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.
For what has been discussed above, we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine.