' SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.---Through this election appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of the Returning Officer dated 13-4-2010 whereby the nomination papers of respondent No,1 (Nazir Ahmed) NA-167 Vehari-I, have been accepted and the objections of the appellant were rejected.
2. Counsel for the appellant contended that there is interpolation in the nomination papers and referred to paragraph No,5 of page-3 of the nomination papers wherein the column of qualification is shown to be blank. He has then referred to another copy of the same nomination papers where the said column has been filled up and states {{URDU TEXT}}.
3. Counsel then referred to the Detailed Marks Certificate of the Bachelor of Arts, Annual Examination, held in August, 2002 obtained by respondent No,1 from Al-Khair University (A.J.K.) on 26-8-2002. He contends that the date sheet for the Bachelor of Arts, Annual Examination 2002, issued by Al Khair University (AJK) shows that written examination of English Language (Compulsory) was scheduled for 26-8-2002 (Monday) therefore it is not possible that Detailed Marks Certificate could be issued to respondent No,1 on the same day showing 98 out of 200 marks in the same subject.
4. He then referred to Form (J) issued under the local Government Ordinance 2001, which according to him was filled up by respondent No,1 for the position of Nazim wherein the said respondent described his educational qualification to Matriculation (there is, however, no date on the said Form but the counsel contends that this was issued sometime in the year 2001).
5. Counsel further referred to letter dated 31-10-2002 issued by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Sargodha which shows that respondent No,1 had failed the said examination and the Intermediate Certificate for Intermediate (Spring) Examination, 1976 bearing Sr. No,009836 was bogus and not issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha.
6. Counsel further referred to F.A. Certified allegedly issued by Tanzeem-ul-Madaris-UI-Islamia Jammu and Kashmir, to respondent No,1 in January, 1996 and then referred to letter dated 18-3- 2008 issued by Dr. Hafeez-ur-Rehman, founder and Incharge to Tanzeem-ul-Modaras Al-Islamia Jammu and Kashmir which certifies that the above F.A. Certificate has not been issued to respondent No,1 and has bogus signatures.
7. Counsel submits that a petition of quo warranto was filed against respondent No,1 after General Elections held in the year 2008 which was finally disposed of by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan vide his order dated 28-3-2008. Referring to order passed in C.P. No,287 of 2008 the counsel referred to paragraphs Nos.15 and 16 of the said order and also referred to order of even date passed in the case of respondent No,1 in Civil Appeal No,1673/2008 to show that respondent No,1 decided not to contest the allegations brought against him regarding his fake and bogus degrees and therefore, he is guilty of having managed fake and bogus degrees. Counsel relied on Intisar Hussain v. Akhtar Hussain and 4 others 2003 SCMR 204, Ch. Qamar Javed v. Intisar Hussain and 3 others PLD 2008 Lahore 130, Intesar Hussain Bhatti v. Vic-Chancellor, University of Punjab, Lahore and others PLD 2008 SC 310 and Muhammad Yousuf v. M. Irshad Sipra and others PLD CLC 2475 and Mian Intsar Hussain Bhatti v. Returning Officer and 2 others 2008 YLR 2386 to contend that respondent No,1 is hit by Article 62(f) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and therefore does not qualify to contest the Bye-Elections.
8. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that finding of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan is tentative in nature and therefore not binding. When questioned whether the B.A.
Detailed Marks Certificate issued by Al-Khair University (Azad Jammu and Kashmir) dated 26-8- 2002 belonged to respondent No,1, learned counsel confirmed that it did. When further asked if respondent No,1 has filed a review against the orders of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan or challenged the letters issued by the respondent authorities since the last litigation, the reply was that he has not but is in the process of filing a review.
9. He further referred to an inquiry report dated 22-1-2003 conducted by Muzaffarabad University College of Computer and Management Sciences, regarding appearance of respondent No,1 in Bachelor of Arts (B.A) examination. The counsel however failed to show the relevance of the said Inquiry Report and the connection of Muzaffarabad University College with Al-Khair University (Azad Jammu and Kashmir). Counsel in support of his arguments relied on Mirza Abdul Rehman v.
Deputy Commissioner/Returning Officer Attock and 2 others 2004 SCMR 979, Election Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary v. Javaid Hashmi and others PLD 1989 SC 396 and Federation of Pakistan and others v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others PLD 2009 SC 644.
10. Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. In the earlier round of litigation, a petition for quo warranto was filed against respondent No,1 on the allegation that he was holding fake and bogus academic degrees. These proceedings culminated before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. 1677 of 2008 and vide order dated 25-3-2010 the apex Court held: (relevant portion).
' Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary, CJ:- Learned counsel appearing for respondent No,1 Nazir Ahmed Jatt stated at the bar that on account of controversy in respect of his academic testimonials, he has decided not to contest this petition; resultantly, he has submitted resignation from Constituency NA-167, Vehari-I today, to the Speaker of the National Assembly and notification in this behalf shall be produced by him tomorrow. (Emphasis supplied)
12. Reference to the conduct of respondent No,1 was also discussed in the order of the even date in C.P. 287 of 2008.
' Paragraphs Nos.15 and 16 of the said order reproduced hereunder:--
15. Nazir Ahmed Jatt, M.N.A. From Vehari (a respondent in Civil Appeal No,1673 of 2008) and one Muhammad Ajmal, M.P.A. From Faisalabad (a petition in Civil Petition No,2049-L of 2009) who also stood accused of having contested their respective elections on the strength of fake and bogus degrees and "Sanads" had also elected not to defend the said allegations; had chosen not even to appear before us in person and had instead tendered their respective resignations from their respective seats. And what makes it a matter of further concern to us is that the matter does not end at these three as was also have more cases coming up on our cause-list carrying similar allegations against some other legislators. (emphasis supplied).
16. Such-like "House Breaking" tendencies on the part of dishonest and unscrupulous individuals need to be strongly checked before the virus becomes an uncontrollable epidermis. (Emphasis supplied).
13. The above orders clearly show that respondent No,1 did not contest the petition and elected not to defend the allegations against him. He also resigned from his seat to avoid the controversy regarding his academic testimonials. The decision of respondent No,1 not to contest such serious allegations before the apex Court, which caused respondent No,1 his political career as he resigned as a member of the National Assembly cannot be taken lightly and we draw strong inference from the same. His refusal to contest the allegations cannot mean that the allegations were conveniently brushed under the carpet and respondent No,1 stood exonerated. It is evident that as the condition regarding academic qualification stood repealed, respondent No,1 thought in best not to contest and resign in order to make away for the next election.
14. We are of the view that when respondent No,1 made a conscious decision not to challenge the allegations levelled against him and also resigned from the seat as a Member of the National Assembly, his act amounted to a confession of repentance and he cannot resile from the same.
15. He has not challenged the said order in a review or initiated any other legal proceedings to vindicate himself. He therefore, cannot be allowed to resile from his position unless he had placed convincing evidence before us, which he has not.
16. The moral and ethical standards of respondent No,1 can be easily gauged from the above facts.
He managed to make his way into the most sacred of houses i,e,, National Assembly of this country by defrauding the public, riding high on his fake and bogus degrees, impersonating and deceiving all around him including his own constituency and then when the matter came before the apex Court he thought it fit not to contest and to. Tender his resignation so that he could salvage his reputation. Today he is again trying to repeat the same, with no sense of remorse.
17. We also asked the counsel for respondent No,1 whether the Detailed Marks Certificate dated 26- 8-2002 issued by Al-Khair University Azad Jammu and Kashmir belonged to respondent No,1 and he confirmed that it did. This certificate was not defended by respondent No,1 before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and he is admitting to it even today. When asked to explain how the said certificate was issued on 26-8-2002 when the examinations were still underway on the said date the counsel for respondent No,1 had no answer.
18. We are of the view that the decision of respondent No,1 not to challenge the allegations levelled against him in the earlier round of litigation followed by resignation is enough proof of his guilt that his academic degrees were indeed fake and bogus. He has also failed to challenge the same in any Court of law. Even today there is no evidence placed on the record by respondent No,1 that could convince this Tribunal otherwise. A person who has employed such deception and deceit cannot by any stretch of imagination pass the test prescribed for a parliamentarian under the Constitution.
19. Article 62 (d) and (f) of the Constitution states as under:--
(d) a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a Member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates H Islamic Injunctions;
(f) a person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a Member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) unless he is sagacious righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen.
[Emphasis supplied]
20. There is convincing evidence before us (as discussed above) to show that the academic credentials of the petitioner are fake and bogus. We are aware that Article 62(d) and (0 of the Constitution are not self-executory but the evidence on the record and the conduct of respondent No,1 as discussed above can set the these provisions in motion. Reliance is placed on Dr. Mobashir Hassan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2010 SC 265 and Raja Muhammad Afzal v. Ch. Muhammad Altaf Hussain and others 1986 SCMR 1736.
21. Taking the literal meaning of these provisions respondent No,1 cannot pass the test of "good character," or of being "righteous, honest J or ameen." The purpose of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution read with section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 is to guard the pious house of the chosen representatives of the people so that its sanctity honour and prestige is not tarnished. We rely with advantage on Dr. Mobashir Hassan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2010 SC 265, Ghazanfar Ali Gul v. Ch. Tajammal Hussain and others 1997 CLC 1628. Mian Intsar Hussain Bhatti v. Returning Officer and 2 others 2008 YLR 2386, Ch. Qamar Javed v. Intsar Hussain and 3 others PLD 2008 Lahore 130, Intsar Hussain v. Akhtar Hussain and 4 others 2003 SCMR 204 and Muhammad Yousuf v. M. Irshad Sipra and others 1988 CLC 2475.
22. We for the above reasons allow this appeal and reject the nomination papers of respondent No,1 and set aside the order of the Returning Officer dated 13-4-2010.