MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.--This appeal assails the order dated 7-4-2013 passed by the learned Returning Officer -NA-48, Islamabad, whereby the nomination paper of the appellant has been rejected in the following terms:- "According to section 99(1A)(g) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 "a person shall be disqualified from being elected if he is acting in any manner against the integrity or independence of the Judiciary of Pakistan or which defames or brings into ridicule the Judiciary" clearly disqualify a candidate who has committed such act and in addition to this the decision of Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 2009 SC 879 it was held at Page-1033 as under:- "It is hereby firmly laid down that the holding in abeyance of the Constitution or any other act having the effect of discontinuing the operation and the enforceability of the Constitution for a single moment in a manner not authorized under the Constitution is nothing but an overthrowing of the Constitution, so to say, the subversion of the Constitution and thus constitutes the offence of high treason."
' Hence, keeping reliance on the observations made in the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, it is very much clear that Mr. Pervez Musharaf Ex-President has violated his oath as President and Chief of Army Staff by abrogating the Constitution acting mala fide, preferring his personal interest on the National interest, ridicule the Judiciary and acted against the independence of the Judiciary by deposing so many Judges of Hon'ble High Courts as well as Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and even Chief Justice of Pakistan and furthermore as per the report of FBR Mr. Pervez Musharaf has not paid any income tax despite the fact that he is having a huge amount in his bank accounts and immovable property in his name, is not qualified to contest the election of the Parliament for N.A. 48, Islamabad-I. With the result that while accepting all the objection petitions his nomination papers are rejected."
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that whilst passing the impugned order the learned Returning Officer has misconstrued and misappreciated the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment reported as Sindh High Court Bar Association through its Secretary and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and others (PLD 2009 SC 879), (hereinafter referred to as "the Judgment"). For a person to be declared as disqualified under the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with section 99(1A)(g) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, to be chosen or elected as a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) there has to be a declaration in unequivocal terms from a Court of law against the person. The Judgment is only declaratory without any attribution of a personal act of the appellant. Indeed, it was only an official act of the appellant which has been declared as void ab initio. The appellant has not been personally held responsible.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through Pages 987, 914, 952, 1057, 1070, 1107, 1198, 1200, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205 and 1206 of the Judgment in support of his contentions.
' Further submits that para-200 on page 1214 of the Judgment only disposes of the case, hence there is no mandatory direction or declaration as to the appellant's disqualification.
4. As to the finding of the learned Returning Officer about non-filing of the Income Tax Returns by the appellant the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding is not sustainable as there was no requirement under the law for the appellant filing Income Tax Returns as he was not residing in Pakistan since having resigned from the office of the President of Pakistan. He further submits that whatever income the appellant earned in the said period was by way of compensation for lectures delivered abroad at various forums for which the appellant was paid in foreign currency. The appellant under the law is not required to file Income Tax Returns in respect of his foreign earnings, especially the ones in foreign exchange.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents controverts the stance of the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the Judgment is a monumental Judgment and is exhaustive. It was passed in the context of the events obtaining in the country at the relevant time. All the factors were weighed and the actions of the appellant were also taken into consideration. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the actions declared illegal and void ab initio in the Judgment were those of the Government of Pakistan and not of the appellant in his individual capacity is misconceived and erroneous inasmuch as the appellant took action against the superior Judiciary of the country as a whole and the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan in particular for the appellant's own personal gain as is exemplified by para-80 of the Judgment wherein it is, inter alia, held that the actions of the appellant of 3rd November, 2007 were the result of his apprehensions regarding the impending disqualification of the appellant to contest the election of President as a result of the decision of Wajihuddin Ahmed's case. It was, therefore, held that it could not be said that the actions taken by the appellant were for welfare of the people rather they were taken by him in his own interest and for illegal and unlawful personal gain of maneouvring another term of office of President. The appellant's actions were, therefore, held to be mala fide.
6. Further submits that the appellant is guilty of firstly violating his oath as an Army Officer to protect the Constitution; secondly his promise to the Nation to shed his uniform and thirdly for taking illegal and mala fide actions against the superior Judiciary to perpetuate his rule. The appellant, therefore, cannot be termed as "ameen". Refers to para-16 page-987; para-179 page- 1200 and pages-1032, 1037, 1038 & 1039 of the Judgment in support of his contentions. Also relies on the judgment reported as Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1089).
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order and the Judgment and finding that through the Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held against the appellant as under: "80. Seen in the above perspective, the actions of General Pervez Musharaf dated 3rd November, 2007 were the result of his apprehensions regarding the decision of Wajihuddin Ahmed's case and his resultant disqualification to contest the election of President. Therefore, it could not be said that the said actions were taken for the welfare of the people. Clearly, the same were taken by him in his own interest and for illegal and unlawful personal gain of maneouvring another term in offtce of President, therefore, the same were mala fide as well. The statement made in Proclamation of Emergency that the situation had been reviewed in meetings with the Prime Minister, Governors of all the four Provinces, and with Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Chiefs of the Armed Forces, Vice Chief of Army Staff and Corps Commanders of the Pakistan Army, and emergency was proclaimed in pursuance of the deliberations and decisions of the said meetings, was incorrect. The Proclamations of Emergency emanated from his person, which was apparent from the words "I, General Pervez Musharraf ..." Used in it."
"81. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the continuation in power of General Pervez Musharraf was all along the result of maneouvring. The holding of Referendum 2002 and the amendments made in the Constitution by means of the LFO, 2002 were hotly contested at the floors of the Houses of Parliament, but the amendments so made in the Constitution were ultimately accepted and the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed on 31st December, 2003 under the umbrella of an accord between the PML (Q) and the MMA, thus paving the way for General Pervez Musharaf to be the President of Pakistan for the next five years, i.e, up to 15th November, 2007 while continuing to be the Chief of Army Staff at the same time in terms of the aforesaid Seventeenth Amendment. He promised to relinquish the office of Chief of Army Staff on or before 31st December, 2004, but later in deviation of his promise, he got enacted the President to Hold Another Office, Act, 2004. That is why his candidature for the election of President was challenged before the Supreme Court, first by the major political parties of the country in Jamat-eIslami's case and later by the two rival candidates of the election of President in Wajihuddin Ahmed's case. The majority decision in Jamat-e-Islami's case was rendered in favour of General Pervez Musharraf only on a legal ground, namely, the petitions were not maintainable as it did not involve enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners. However, four out of nine Judges gave decision on merits and held him disqualified to contest the election of President."
"82. As to the constitutionality and the legality of the acts/actions of 3rd November, 2007, General Pervez Musharraf himself in an interview to a foreign TV news channel (BBC) admitted that he had taken unconstitutional steps. Relevant portion from his interview, as reported in the Daily DAWN of 18th November, 2007 is reproduced below:--- The daily DAWN, Islamabad, 18th November, 2007 NO ILLEGAL STEP TAKEN BEFORE NOV. PRESIDENT; "Before March, I was very good. Suddenly did I go mad after March or suddenly my personality changed, am I Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde or what is it?" He said.
"Am I such a person?
"Please go into the details, the causes. What I am doing? Have I done anything unconstitutional, yes, I did it on Nov.
3. "Did I do it before? Not once."
"102. In the light of the above discussion, it is held and declared that the amendments purportedly made by General Pervez Musharraf from 3rd November, 2007 up till 15th December, 2007 (both days inclusive) were neither made by an authority mentioned in the Constitution nor the same were made following the procedure prescribed in the Constitution and were, therefore, unconstitutional, illegal and void ab initio.. "
"174. As seen above, the whole grievance was nurtured against the Judges of the Supreme Court who were hearing the disqualification case of General Pervez Musharraf but in issuing the unconstitutional and illegal Proclamation of Emergency, PCO No,1 of 2007 and Oath Order, 2007 all Judges of the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court and High Courts were declared to have ceased to hold office and only such Judges were allowed to occupy the seats of Judges who made oath in violation of the order dated 3rd November, 2007 passed by a seven---member Bench of this Court in Wajihuddin Ahmed's case."
"179. All the acts/actions done or taken by General Pervez Musharraf from 3rd November, 2007 to 15th December, 2007 (both days inclusive), that is to say, Proclamation of Emergency and the subsequent acts/actions done or taken in pursuance thereof having been held and declared to be unconstitutional, illegal ultra, vires and void ab initio are not capable of being condoned. These include Proclamation of Emergency and the PCO No,1 of 2007 issued by him as Chief of Army Staff and Oath Order, 2007 issued by him as President of Pakistan in pursuance of the aforesaid two instruments, all dated 3rd November, 2007; Provisional Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 dated 15th November, 2007; Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2007 (President's Order No,5 of 2007 dated 20th November, 2007); Constitution (Second Amendment)
Order, 2007 (President's Order No,6 of 2007 dated 14th December, 2007); Islamabad High Court (Establishment) Order 2007(President's Order No,7 of 2007 dated 14th December 2007); High Court Judges (Pensionary Benefits) Order, 2007 (President's Order No,8 of 2007 dated 14th December, 2007) and Supreme Court Judges (Pensionary Benefits) Order, 2007 (President's Order No,9 of 2007 dated 14th December, 2007). The aforesaid actions of General Pervez Musharraf are also shorn of the validity purportedly conferred upon them by the decisions in Tikka lqbal Muhammad Khan's case. The said decisions have themselves been held and declared to be coram non judice and nullity in the eye of law. The amendments purportedly made in the Constitution in pursuance of PCO No,1 of 2007 themselves having been declared to be unconstitutional and void ab initio, all the actions of General Pervez Musharraf taken on and from 3rd November, 2007 till 15th December, 2007 (both days inclusive) are also shorn of the validity purportedly conferred upon them by means of Article 270AAA."
8. In view of the foregoing we find that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are not only misconceived but are also fallacious and are, therefore, repelled.
9. We find no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the order of the learned Returning Officer. As a consequence, this appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.