MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.--- Through this single order, I propose to decide two petitions i.e, W.P.No,17365 of 2010 and W.P.No,16367 of 2010 as the same question of law and facts is involved in both the petitions.
2. The respondent No,1 was elected as Member Parliament from NA-188 Bhawalnagar-I in general elections held in the Year 2008. The petitioners of both the constitutional petitions have challenged the respondent No,1 's educational qualification asserting that respondent No,1 is not graduate and pray to the Court that respondent No,1 be asked under what authority of law he is holding the Public Office as the respondent No,1 did not fulfil the mandatory requirements of section 99(cc) of the Representation of the People Act of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976).
3. The respondent No,1 controverted the petitioner's assertion and contends that the petition is mala fide, the petitioners have no locus standi to file the petition. The respondent is holding graduation degree from University of the Punjab.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that respondent No, l's name is Khadim Hussain son of Nazar Muhammad. The educational certificates and degree claimed by the respondent No,1 is of one Muhammad Akhtar Khadim son of Nazar Muhammad. The respondent No,1 is contesting elections of Provincial Assembly since 1985 under the name of Khadim Hussain but in year 2002 when the degree of graduation was made mandatory, the respondent No,1 obtained the educational certificates of one Muhammad Akhtar Khadim and fraudulently got prepared a NIC with the connivance of NADRA authorities declaring his name as Muhammad Akhtar Khadim alias Khadim Hussain and successfully defrauded the voters of constituency of Bhawalnagar, he submitted wrong documents on Oath and as such he is not qualified to be elected as Member of Parliament. The respondent No,1 at the time of submission of his nomination papers for the constituency N.A 118 was not a qualified person to be elected as Member of Parliament under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution).
The petitioners have produced documentary evidence which is not denied by the respondent No,1, the admitted evidence available on record will show that name of respondent No,1 is Mian Khadim Hussain Wattoo in the list of successful candidates.
5. Learned Counsel for respondent No,1 submits that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition under Article 199 (1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution as the rule 3 of the Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981 debars the jurisdiction of Principal Seat of Lahore High Court. Admittedly the respondent No,1 is returned candidate of NA-188 Bhawalnagar-I which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench. The question of disqualification of member National Assembly is within the exclusive domain of Speaker National Assembly under Article 63(2) of the Constitution.
6. The writ of quo warranto is not maintainable unless it is established that the same is not prompted by malice and the petition did not suffer from laches and the factual controversy is not involved. One of the petitioner contested election of Provincial Assembly from PP-227 against the respondent No,l's brother but lost, the petition thus is mala fide and is the outcome of political rivalry. In the election of Provincial Assembly PP-277 held in 2002, the respondent No,1 and the brother of one of the petitioners Mian Sardar Khan contested the election against each other, the same objection was raised before the Returning Officer, the Returning Officer repelled the objection and finally declared that Mian Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Akhtar Khadim are the name of one person and the graduation degree of respondent No,1 is genuine, the said finding of the Returning Officer was never challenged by anyone including both the petitioners and as such the said finding attained finality. The petitioners' so-called allegations are of factual controversy which could only be resolved after recording the evidence, this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction is unable to record the evidence. The election petition on the same allegation has already been dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution and application for its restoration has also been dismissed. The dispute once decided by the competent forum could not be reopened through the petition under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution. The petition suffers from misjoinder of necessary parties.
Learned counsel on merits submits that respondent No,1 is first born child of the family, his grandfather selected his name as Khadim Hussain, and as per custom in the locality that first child after birth spent considerable part of their childhood with his mother's family, the respondent No,1 spent his childhood with his maternal uncle's house, respondent No, 1 's maternal uncle selected his name as Muhammad Akhtar Khadim, his maternal Uncle got him admitted in school of Mandi Sadiq Ganj where his name was recorded as Muhammad Akhtar Khadim, the respondent No,1 completed his initial education at Mandi Sadiq Ganj and then migrated to Abbot-Abad and admitted in Public School. The respondent No,1 passed his matriculation examination under the name of Muhammad Akhtar Khadim and shifted to Sadiq Public School Bahawalpur, the respondent No,1 passed intermediate examination and then obtained graduation degree from the University of Punjab. The respondent No,1 started his political career from his grandfather's native village, in that area the respondent No,1 was known as Khadim Hussain, he contested elections from 1985 to 2002 under the name of Khadim Hussain but when the graduation degree was made mandatory in 2002, the respondent No,1 approached Election Commission and got his name altered as Muhammad Akhtar Khadim alias Khadim Hussain, in the electoral list of 2007, the respondent No,1 name is mentioned with his family as Muhammad Akhtar Khadim alias Khadim Hussain. The respondent No,1 however for clarifying the ambiguity filed a suit for declaration before Civil Court for correction of his name in educational documents, the suit was decreed. The allegations of petitioners are thus wrong and are an attempt to blackmail the respondent No, 1 .
Learned Counsel has relied on Election Commission of Pakistan v. Asif Iqbal and others (PLD 1992 SC 342), Ayatullah Dr.Imran Liaquat Hussain v. Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and another (PLD 2005 SC 52), Malik Ghulam Mustafa Khar and others v. Pakistan and others (PLD 1988 Lahore 49), Chief Administrator of Auqaf v. Muhammad Ramzan and others (PLD 1991 SC 102), Mrs. Benazir Bhutto and another v. Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 1989 SC 66) and Reference No,1 of 1988 made by the President of Pakistan (PLD 1989 SC 75).
7. Heard, record perused.
8. The first argument of learned counsel for the respondent No,1 is about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. No doubt, Rule 3 of the Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules 1981, specifically provides that all matters arising within the area assigned to a Bench shall be filed before and disposed of by that Bench, but under Rule 5 of Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches), the Chief Justice has the powers to transfer any pending proceedings at the Principal Seat or a Bench to another Bench or the Principal Seat of the High Court. Admittedly the petitioners filed the petition at Principal Seat, the office has not objected the filing of the petition at Principal Seat, the respondent No,1 has not raised the said objection before the Full Bench of this Court when the Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted a Larger Bench as referred by the learned Full Bench of this Court while deciding the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution, the learned Full Bench of this Court while deciding the issue of maintainability observed as under;--- "14. Adverting now to the second objection raised by the counsel for the respondents that a writ of quo warranto is not maintainable against Member of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly as the same is not a public office. In pith and substance, it is the case of the learned counsel that the respondents hold an elected office, and therefore, no constitutional petition under Article 199(1) (b)
(ii) can be filed against them.
15. This interpretation of the term of public office in the context of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court came up for consideration before the honourable Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment in Salaud Din's case PLD 1975 SC 244 wherein it was held at page 257 as under:-- "The primary test must always be whether the function entrusted to the organization or person concerned are indeed functions of the state involving some exercise of sovereign or public power; whether the control of the organization vests in a substantial manner in the hands of Government; and whether the bulk of the funds is provided by the State. If these conditions are fulfilled, then the person, including a body politic or body corporate, may indeed be regarded as a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province; otherwise not."
16. A perusal of the afore quoted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reveals that the primary test for determining whether a person holds a public office or not is the nature of the authority to be exercised by him. If a person is repository of the sovereign power of the State, Legislative, Executive or Judicial or even a fragment thereof he shall be deemed to hold a public office. The Members of the National or the Provincial Legislature, obviously exercise sovereign power of the State. In the context of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, State sovereignty vest in the people of Pakistan to be exercised through their chosen representative, as has been set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution as well as to Article 2-A thereof. The Members of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly are the chosen representatives who exercise a sovereign legislative power of the State leaving no room for any doubt that the Members of Parliament and the Provincial Assembly, as the case may be, hold a public office, and are therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199(1) (b) (ii) through a writ of quo warranto. Furthermore, this Court as well as the Supreme Court have consistently entertained and adjudicated upon writs of quo warranto against Members of the Parliament and the Provincial Assembly.
17. In view of above, it is clear and obvious that the respondents who claim to be Members of the Parliament or the Provincial Assembly are holders of public office, and therefore, Constitutional Petitions at hand under Article 199 (1) (b) (ii) are maintainable.
18..........................
19..........................
20............................
21...........................
22...............................
23. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear and obvious that the instant writs of quo warranto are maintainable notwithstanding the provision of Article 225 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Members of the Parliament and the Members of the Provincial Assemblies hold a public office for purposes of Article 199(i) (b) (ii) of the Constitution. With regard to the contentions of learned counsel as to the educational qualification or lack thereof of the returned candidates in the contest of the change in law, we refrain from expressing any opinion leaving this matter to be decided through the individual Constitutional Petitions by the appropriate Benches seized thereof "
9. The respondent No,1 then assailed the judgment of learned Full Bench before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan remanded the case with the consent of the parties and ordered as under:--- "1. Let the High Court decide petitions pending before it on merits without being prejudice in any manner from the impugned judgment dated 29-7-2011.
2 All the petitions arising out of the impugned judgment shall be placed before a bench of a High Court for the purpose of consolidated judgment as the question of law and facts seems to be common in all these matters.
3. The petitioners shall free to approach this court after the judgment on merits pronounced if against them with further liberty to raise the question of maintainability of the petitions in the nature of quo warranto before this court in terms of the order impugned herein and in such eventuality no question of laches or limitation shall come in the way of the petitioners because the instant petitions raise a question of the constitutional nature."
10. After the order of Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting the Full Bench for deciding the legal objection involved in the petitions pending in all the Benches of Lahore High Court, the objection about the territorial jurisdiction is no more available to petitioners, especially when the respondent No,1 has given consent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan for placing all the petitions before a Bench, hence the argument of learned counsel is repelled.
11. The second question of maintainability of the petition of quo warranto in the presence of Article 225 of the Constitution has been decided by the Full Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29-7- 2011, the said judgment still holds the field with the only exception that in case the respondent No,1 if will be aggrieved of the judgment of this Court, he will be at liberty to question the legality of the judgment of Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court; hence the second argument of learned counsel for petitioner about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution is final subject to the order dated 30-5-2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
12. The third argument of learned counsel for respondent No,1 is that petition is tainted with malice and is not maintainable being mala fide as one of the petitioners is the defeated candidate on a provincial seat against the respondent No,1's brother. It is an admitted fact that one of the petitioners namely Muhammad Tariq Usman has political rivalry with the respondents No, l's family but the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz Cheema is a professional advocate and he has no political ambitions against the respondent No,1, further the petition of quo warranto empowers the Court to inquire from a person the authority of law under which he is holding the public office, and it is primarily inquisitorial and not adversarial proceedings as the relator need not be a person aggrieved, for the simple reason that a person who is holding a public office without any legal warrant, he is burden on public exchequer and is also usurping the right of eligible person who is entitled for the office A according to law, hence the writ of quo warranto can be moved by any person who may not be an aggrieved party. The challenger only has to place the facts before the Court against the Public Office holder and it is up to the Court to examine the allegations of the petitioner against the Public Office Holder, the Court being the custodian of the rights of tax payer is bound to safeguard the usurpation of public exchequer. Reference in this regard is made to Masood-ul-Hassan v. Khadim Hussain and another (PLD 1963 SC 203).
13. The issue of maintainability of writ of Quo Warranto was dealt with by the Indian Supreme Court in The University of Mysore and another v. C.D. Govinda Rao and another (AIR 1965 SC 491) and the court observed as under:--- "Broadly stated, the quo Warranto proceeding affords a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, the issue of the writ of quo Warranto ousts him from that office. In other words, the procedure of quo Warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have a right. It would thus be seen that if these proceedings are adopted subject to the conditions recognized in that behalf they tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office; in some cases; persons not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy them and to continue to hold them as a result of the connivance of the executive or with its active help, and in such cases, if the jurisdiction of the Courts to issue writ of quo Warranto is properly invoked, the usurper can be ousted and the person entitled to the post allowed to occupy it. It is thus, clear that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo Warranto, he must satisfy the Court, inter alia, that the office in question is public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not."
14. It is settled principle of law that where writ of quo warranto is initiated, the only duty of the petitioner is to lay information before the Court that public officer has no legal authority to retain such office. The petitioner only acts as an informer and is not bound to establish his locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court.
15. In Masood-ul-Hassan's case (supra) it has been held that writ of quo Warranto in its nature is an information laying against person who claimed or usurped an office, franchise or liberty and was intended to inquire by what authority he supported his claim in order that right to office may be determined.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Capt. (Retd.) Muhammad Naseem Hijazi v Province of Punjab through Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning and 2 others (2000 SCMR 1720) held as under;--- "7. It is true that Raheel Sarwar Pal, instituted writ petition in capacity of General Secretary, Workers'
Union challenging the status of petitioner to hold office of BPS-19 in G.D.A. For the reasons mentioned in the petition. We are clear in our mind that no interest of the General Secretary directly or indirectly was involved to challenge the service status of petitioner nor he was aspirant to be a candidate for the post which petitioner was holding in BPS-19. Inasmuch as petitioner did not place any material before this Court to canvass that legal proceedings were initiated by the General Secretary of the Union to vindicate his personal interest or the interest of any other member of the union or anyone else who is either interested in his appointment against the post which the petitioner is holding or on account of good performance of the petitioner he became interested for his removal from the service to achieve ulterior subject. Under Article 199(2) (b) (ii) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is competent to enquire from any person, holder of a public office to call upon him to show that under what authority he is holding the said office. In such-like cases where a writ in the nature of quo Warranto is instituted the duty of the petitioner is to lay an information before the Court that such and such officer has no legal authority to retain such office. For a petitioner who acts, in fact, as an informer is not required to establish his locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. In this behalf reference may be made to Masood-ul-Hassan v.
Khadim Hussain and another (PLD 1963 SC 203). In this report it has been held that writ of quo Warranto in its nature is an information laying against persons who claimed or usurped an office, franchise or liberty and was intended to inquire by what authority he supported his claim in order that right to office may be determined. It was further held that it is not necessary for the issuance of writ that the office should be one created by the State of character or by statute and that the duty should be of a public nature. Similarly in the case of M. U.A. Khan v. Rana Muhammad Sultan and another (PLD 1974 SC 228) this Court held that writ of quo Warranto could be moved by "any person who even may not be an aggrieved party but is holding a public office created by character or statute by the State". Yet in another case which is reported from the jurisdiction of High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir i.e, Ali Hussain Bukhari and 39 others v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary and others (1992 PLC (C.S.) 289), it was observed that any person can move the High Court to challenge the unauthorized occupation of a public office on any such application Court is not only to see that the incumbent is holding the office under the order of a competent Authority but it is to go beyond that and see as to whether he is legally qualified to hold the office or to remain in the office, the Court has: also to see if statutory provisions have been violated in making the appointment. The invalidity of appointment may arise not only from one of qualifications but also from violation of legal provision for appointment."
17. If for the sake of arguments we assume that petitioner Tariq Usman has some malice against the family of respondent No,1, the said allegation is not against the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz Cheema Advocate; hence this argument of learned counsel is not sustainable in the circumstances of the case.
18. Now it has to be seen whether the respondent No,1 and Muhammad Akhtar Khadim is one and the same person or not. Admittedly the respondent No,1 has a long political career, he started his career as Member Provincial Assembly in the year 1985 in the name of Khadim Hussain S/o Nazar Muhammad, he continued with the name of Khadim Hussain up to 2002, when the graduation degree for the Member Parliament was made obligatory, he started to claim himself Muhammad Akhtar Khadim alias Khadim Hussain. In the electoral list of 2007 (Annex-A) the petitioner is a registered voter at Kholo Marzakay Tehsil Minchanabad District Bhawalnagar, Union Council No,11 Kholo Marzakay, the Gazette Notification issued on 1-3-2008 for the returned candidates of-the General Election 2008 shows the name of respondent No,1 is as Mr. Muhammad Akhtar Khalid alias Khadim Hussain S/o Mian Nazar Muhammad N.A-188 Bhawalnagar. The defence taken by the respondent No,1 is that he born in the house of his paternal grandfather who named him as Khadim Hussain but he grown up in the family of his maternal uncle who named him as Muhammad Akhtar Khadim and he acquired his primary and middle education from the residence of his maternal uncle after that he joined Public School Abbot Abad and passed matriculation examination from Peshawar Board, after that he was admitted in Sadiq Public High School Bahawalpur and passed his intermediate examination in the Year 1969 and then passed his graduation from the University of Punjab in the Year 1971. In all the educational documents, the respondent No,1 's name is Muhammad Akhtar Khadim, when the Bachelor Degree was made mandatory he approached the Election Commission and got corrected his name as Muhammad Akhtar Khadim alias Khadim Hussain and to get rid of the confusion he filed a suit before the Civil Court for declaration with permanent injunction praying that it be declared that his original name is Mian Khadim Hussain instead of Muhammad Akhtar Khadim and the defendants be directed to make correction in the Matriculation Certificate, Intermediate Certificate and Bachelor Degree. The court passed the decree.
19. The respondent No,1 himself has placed on record the photocopies of School Leaving Certificate from Government High School Mandi Sadiq Gunj, as per this certificate he was admitted in School on 28-4-1961 under the name of Muhammad Akhtar Khadim son of Nazar Muhammad and left the School on 20-4-1963 from class 8th meaning thereby he remained in the School only for two years, this document is not the original copy of the certificate but is duplicate one issued on 19-7-2010, A letter dated 4-8-2010 issued by Abbottabad Public School Abbottabad confirming that Muhammad Akhtar Khadim son of Nazar Muhammad was Regular Boarder Student of this institution, he was admitted on 29-5-1963 and left in March/April, 1967, he passed his Secondary School Examination held in March 1967, the contents of this letter are available in Matriculation Certificate issued by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Peshawar, it is again a duplicate copy of the certificate, likewise the certificate of intermediate is also a duplicate copy of the original. The degree of Bachelor also confirms the name of holder of the degree Muhammad Akhtar Khadim but it is again the duplicate copy of original. It is interesting to note that respondent No,1 has not filed his birth certificate and the primary school leaving certificate which are the basic documents. Every student who starts his education is admitted in Primary School on the basis of birth certificate. The case of the petitioner is that his maternal uncle got him admitted in the School of Mandi Sadiq Gunj, but the School Leaving Certificate of Mandi Sadiq Gunj shows that Muhammad Akhtar Khadim got admission in 6th class on 28-4-1961 and remained there up to 8th class. If the respondent has started his primary schooling from the residence of his maternal uncle at Mandi Sadiq Gunj he must have been admitted in primary class at Mandi Sadiq Gunj, further it was very easy for the respondent No,1 to prove that he born in his maternal uncle's house and his maternal uncle has named him as Muhammad Akhtar Khadim by producing his birth certificate and if he was not having the birth certificate for any reason he could produce his Primary School Certificate but both the necessary documents are missing in the record of the respondent No,l. The respondent claims that he approached the Election Commission and get his name corrected is again not believable as firstly he has not produced the application submitted to the Election Commission, secondly he has not got corrected his name from Muhammad Akhtar Khadim with Mian Khadim Hussain, he only got inserted the words "alias Khadim Hussain" in the election commission record, this is the case of respondent that his original name is not Muhammad Akhtar Khadim but his case is that his original name is Khadim Hussain and his maternal uncle has named him Muhammad Akhtar Khadim which is mentioned in his educational documents, so if the respondent No,1 wanted to change his name he should change his name as Mian Khadim Hussain and not Muhammad Akhtar Khadim alias Khadim Hussain. It is admitted by the respondent No,1 that from 1985 to 2002 he contested the election of Provincial Assembly under the name of Khadim Hussain. Thus the insertion of words "alias Khadim Hussain" was intentional as the graduation degree was in the name of Muhammad Akhtar Khadim and this insertion was with the connivance of corrupt employees of Election Commission and was meant to camouflage the facts, the insertion of words alias Khadim Hussain does not mean that degree of Muhammad Akhtar Khadim becomes the degree of Khadim Hussain. The Election Commission under law has no authority and jurisdiction to change the name of any degree holder itself. It is the jurisdiction of the court to declare that who is Muhammad Akhtar Khadim and who is Khadim Hussain.
20. The argument of learned counsel for respondent is that respondent No,1 filed a suit before the Civil Court who declared that Muhammad Akhtar Khadim and Khadim Hussain is one of the same person. The respondent No,1 has placed on record the copy of plaint which shows that respondent No,1 filed a suit on 3-3-2007 and obtained an ex parte decree on 22-11-2007. The judgment and decree available on record shows that in the said suit the respondent No,1 has also not filed his birth certificate and primary School certificate and only filed the duplicate educational certificates but surprisingly the said decree has not been implemented or executed so far, as till today the respondent No,1 is holding the duplicate documents in the name of Muhammad Akhtar Khadim.
The reason for not executing the decree is obvious as the respective board and university may initiate the inquiry for establishing the identity of respondent No,1 and to avoid the expected inquiry on the part of respondents' educational institution the respondent No,1 has not executed the decree.
21. The respondent is not holding the original documents, he got the duplicate documents issued of the following dates:--- A School leaving certificate, Government Mandi Sadiq Gunj, Tehsil Minchanabad, District Bahawalnagar19-7-2010 Duplicate.
B Letter from Abbottabad Public School Abbottabad.4-8-2010 (examination held in 1967)
C Matriculation Certificate from Peshawar BoardNo date Duplicate.
D Intermediate Certificate from Secondary Board Multan.18-6-2001 Duplicate (Examination held in 1969)
E Degree of Graduation.23-8-2002 Duplicate (Examination held in 1971).
It is not the case of respondent No,1 that his original educational documents are misplaced and are not traceable; he has not produced the applications submitted to the Peshawar Board, Multan Board and University of Punjab for issuance of duplicate documents claiming that his original documents have been lost or misplaced. The non-production of the original educational documents or the proof of loss of these original documents led to believe that original documents are in possession of Muhammad Akhtar Khadim and the respondent No,1 is not Muhammad Akhtar Khadim.
22. The respondent No,1 relies on an ex parte declaratory decree dated 22-11-2007 but still the respondent No,1 has not get the decree implemented in the record of Peshawar Board, Multan Board and University of Punjab. In fact the decree of court is a planned attempt to establish that Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Akhtar Khadim are one of the same person.
23. The above said discussion will show that Muhammad Akhtar Khadim is different from Khadim Hussain. The respondent No,1 thus has submitted wrong documents on oath while submitting his nomination papers, claiming that he is holding valid genuine graduation degree, when he is not holding the graduation decree.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Iftikhar Ahmed Khan's case (Supra) while discussing the status of parliament and character of the parliamentarian has held as under:--- "The parliament of any country is one of its noblest, honourable and important institutions making not only the policies and the laws for the nation but in fact shaping and carving its very destiny.
And here is a man who being constitutionally and legally debarred from being its member, managed to sneak into it by making a false statement on oath and by using bogus, fake and forged documents polluting the piety of this pious body. His said conduct demonstrates not only his callous contempt for the basic norms of honesty, integrity and even for his own oath but also undermines the sanctity, the dignity and the majesty of the said august House. He is guilty, inter alia, of impersonation posing to be what he was not i.e, a graduate. He is also guilty of having been a party to the marking of false documents and then dishonestly using them for his benefit knowing them to be false. He is further guilty of cheating---cheating not only his own constituents but the nation at large."
25. The argument of learned counsel for respondent No,1 that degree of graduation is not the condition precedent for contesting the election of Provincial or National Assembly and as such the petition become infructuous is devoid of merit. This issue has been resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1054) as under:---
16. After hearing the petitioner, learned Attorney General, learned counsel for the respondents and others, taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Constitution reproduced hereinabove and the material available on record, we are persuaded to hold that if a candidate suffers from pre or post disqualification under Article 63(1) (c) of the Constitution, no sooner such disqualification as envisaged under the said Article is attracted, becomes and is disqualified from being elected or chosen, and from being a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). These provisions have to be construed strictly by interpreting the same in view of the established principle of interpretation by assigning plain and simple meanings to the words and phrases used therein and avoiding any substitution thereof as the same is not within the ambit of this Court.
26. To upshot of above discussion is that respondent No,1 is not a graduate and as such he submitted false information on oath while contesting the Election of Member of National Assembly NA-188 Bahawalnagar and succeeded to defraud the voters of the constituency, hence I accept the writ petitions and declare the respondent No, 1 's election as member of National Assembly fraudulent and of no legal effect and hope that Election Commission of Pakistan will take appropriate legal action against the respondent No,1 and the employees of Peshawar Board, Multan Board and University of the Punjab according to law. The petitions are allowed in the above said terms.