IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---The Petitioner contested the General Elections of 2008 wherein he had declared himself to be a Bachelors graduate (B.A.). As per him, B.A. degree was awarded to him by the Shah Abdul Latif University (SAL) in the year 2006 pre-requisite whereof, is F.A. or equivalent study. In the General Elections 2013 the Petitioner again contested the elections and was declared as the returned candidate from PK-54, Mansehra-II. Strangely, this time around, the Petitioner had declared his educational qualification as Matriculation. This material deviation in Petitioners stance qua his education was challenged by one Syed Ahmed Hussain Shah in an Election Petition No,42/2013. As a result the election of the Petitioner was set aside for having made a false declaration and he was disqualified in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the Constitution). On appeal this Court, vide judgment dated 27.01.2014 in C.As. Nos, 1308 and 1309 of 2013, set aside the judgment of the Election Tribunal and dismissed the Election Petition on the grounds that compliance with sections 54 and 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 had not been made.
2. Against this backdrop the respondents filed a writ petition in the nature of quo warranto challenging the election of the Petitioner. It has been allowed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar vide impugned judgment dated 26.01.2017. The election of the petitioner has been set aside on account of the false declaration made by the Petitioner while contesting the aforementioned elections.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner had sought dismissal of the Constitutional Petition on the ground that the matter stood decided and res judicata was applicable in this case. He has re- agitated this point before us. Further, he has argued that there is no live issue in the matter and that the High Court could not have gone behind the B.A. degree issued to the Petitioner by SAL University. That election of the Petitioner for the General Election 2013 could not have been set aside on the basis of nomination papers filed in the preceding elections. Moreover, the Petitioners' case is more of an omission to mention in his nomination papers for the 2013 Election, that he was a graduate and such omission has no material bearing on his candidature as no such requirement had been placed in the 2013 Elections. Lastly, that the respondents had not challenged the Sanad of the Petitioner before the right forum therefore such challenge in the Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court, could not have been made.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we find ourselves unable to take a view, contrary to the one that has been expressed in the impugned judgment.
5. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner did his matriculation in the April, 1996. It is also admitted that he had declared himself as graduate (B.A.) on the basis of Sanad, Shandat-ul-Alia purported to have obtained by him on 19.12.1996. Further, the 'Deeni Madrasa' which had allegedly issued him the 'Sanad' was not amongst the institutions recognized by the Higher Education Commission
(HEC) for the purposes of issuing 'Sanad'.
6. Although the issue at hand emanates from the educational qualifications and requirements of being a graduate stipulated in the Constitution, which stipulation was later on removed from the Constitution, rather the same primarily pertains to truthfulness of a candidate and the consequences ensuing after making of a false declaration.
7. It was exactly in this context that this Court while deciding the matter pertaining to 'fake degrees' in Iqbal Ahmed Langrials' case held that: "Admittedly the appellant used fake documents not only in the year 2002 but also in the year 2008 and also made false declaration making him liable to criminal action under certain provisions of P.P.C. In the case of Muddasar Qayyum Nahra v. Ch. Bilal Ijaz (2011 SCMR 80) this Court had upheld the findings of Election Tribunal, Punjab whereby it was held that a person who indulges into using unfair means in procuring his educational qualifications does not deserve to claim to be an honest, righteous or Ameen person so that he be assigned the high responsibilities of performing national functions of running the affairs of the country. The spirit with which the words sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and Ameen have been used by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for the eligibility of the candidates contesting the elections of Members National or Provincial Assembly cannot be allowed to be frustrated if persons who secure their educational documents through unfair means and are found guilty of such a condemnable act by the competent authority are allowed to be given entry into the doors of National or Provincial Assemblies of our country."
The above proposition of law was adequately dealt with by this Court in Imran Khan Niazi's case in the following terms:
10. The argument that the petitioner could not be disqualified under Article 62(1)0 of the Constitution without recording evidence, in a proceeding under Article 184(3) of the Constitution also runs counter to the settled law of the land as this Court in the case of Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 1089) while exercising jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution proceeded to disqualify the person elected, who despite being disqualified in terms of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution made a false declaration on solemn affirmation in his nomination papers to the contrary. The relevant paragraphs read as under:- "we have no option but to hold that at the time of submitting their nomination papers they were disqualified and ineligible to file the same and apparently have made false statements while submitting their nomination papers'.
From the facts noted hereinabove, what appears is that respondent was holding citizenship of a foreign state, made statement on oath that he is qualified under Article 62(1)(c) of the1 Constitution and not disqualified under Article 63(1) of the Constitution apparently made a false statement.'
All members of the parliament/provincial assemblies noted above had made false declaration before the ECP while filing their nomination papers and as such appear to be guilty of corrupt practices in terms of section 78 of ROPA, 1976, therefore, the ECP is directed to institute legal proceedings against them under section 82 of the Act read with sections 193, 196, 197, 198 and 199, P.P. C. in accordance with law.'
To further cement this proposition we find that the facts and circumstances of this case are almost identical to the facts and ratio of Najeeb-ud-Din Owaisi's case and for 'ease of reference the finding of this Court is reproduced below: "yet if a candidate has made a declaration in the column meant for academic qualification and declared himself to be a graduate, but subsequently, it is found that he was not a graduate then he would be equally liable to face the consequences of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution or the other relevant provisions of the P.P.C. It is further to be observed that once there is a disqualification, it is always a disqualification; therefore while making a declaration in the nomination papers, a candidate must provide, a crystal clear statement about his credentials and antecedents. There is no scope of making or proving information, which is not correct, because he is one of the persons whom the electorate of a constituency, which may be having a strength of 50 thousand, are going to elect their representative. Therefore, whatever he possesses in terms of academic qualification, bank credits and taxes etc. he shall have to declare each and every thing required for the qualification to contest the election."
Once a person has filed a declaration under his signatures declaring that he fulfills the conditions of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and he undertakes that the statement is correct and if such declaration is incorrect the ECP shall de-notify him for such representation, retrospectively.'
8. Similarly, in Yasmeen Bibi's case this principle was reiterated by this Court and a Parliamentarian who had tendered a fake degree was held to be disqualified in terms of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution.
9. In addition to the above, the Petitioner was asked in open Court qua the legitimacy of the degree allegedly possessed by him. He was asked simple questions about basic principles of Islam and Hadith, but he was unable to recall the curriculum of the course of study (Shahadat-ul-Aalia). This leaves us in no manner of doubt that the Petitioner had indeed filed false declarations before different fora at different times. No sufficient answer was provided thereof.
10. For the reasons given above, we have not found any reason to grant leave in this matter thus, these Petitions are without merit and are accordingly dismissed. Malik Iqbal Ahmed Langrial v. Jamshed Alam [PLD 2013 SC 179] Mian Najeeb ud Din Owasi v. Amir Yar Waran (PLD 2013 SC 482)