Athar Minallah, C.J.- Senator M. Fesal Vawda (hereinafter Referred to as the 'Petitioner ') has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republ ic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Constitution' ) challenging an interim order , dated 12-10-2021, passed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission' ). The latter has dismissed the application of the Petitioner whereby he had prayed for dismissal/rejection of proceedings pending against him.
2. The Petitioner had contested the General Election, 2018 and was declared as a returned candidate and thereafter he was notified as a member of the National Assembly of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). A larger Bench of the august Supreme Court, consisting of five Hon'ble Judges, vide order reported as Speaker , National Assembly of Pakistan, Islamabad and others v. Habib Akram and others? [PLD 2018 SC 678] had approved the draft of affidavit submitted by the Com mission and it was made an integral part thereof. The august Supreme Court had directed as follows.- "7. All candidates of the National and Provincial Assemblies shall file the said affidavit along with their Nomination Papers. Such candidates, who have already filed their Nomination Papers, shall file the said Affidavit with the Returning Officers by or before 11th June, 2018. The Secretary , ECP, has assured us that the aforesaid process will not in any manner upset the schedule of Elections so as to delay of holding of the General Elections on 25.7.2018, as already announced.
8. It is clarified that failure to file such Affidavit before the Returning Officer would render the Nomination Papers incomplete and liable to rejection. If the Affidavit or any part thereof is found false then it shall have consequences, as contemplated by the Constitution and the law. Since the Affidavit is required to be filed in pursuance of the orders of this Court, therefore, if any false statement is made therein, it would also entail such penalty as is of filing a false affidavit before this Court."
3. The Petitioner was amongst the elected representatives who had been declared as a returned candidate. He, therefore, in compliance with the direction of the apex court, had submitted his affidavit. It is noted that the power and jurisdiction of the Commission to conduct a probe regarding the contents/declaration made by a candidate in his/her affidavit arises out of the aforementioned direction of the august Supreme Court read with Articles 218 and 219 of the Constitution. The probe regarding falsity or otherwise of the affidavit was, and continues to be the obligation of the Commission pursuant to the direction given by the august Supreme Court. It was, and continues to be an obligation of the Commission to complete the probe regardless of any proceedings brought before it. In case the Commission comes to the conclusion that the affidavit contained false declaration(s), then the latter is also responsible to ensure that the consequences contemplated under the Constitution and the law ensues. It is noted that the consequences, inter alia, would entail such penalties 'as is of filing a false affidavit before the august Supreme Court'. Moreover , this Court vide order , dated 03-03-2021, passed in the case relating to the Petitioner , titled Mian Muhammad Faisal v . Muhammad Faisal V awda and four others ? has held as follows.- "However , matter of furnishing false affidavit is to be probed by the Election Commission of Pakistan since the same was submitted before it and the Commission may pass appropriate orders with respect to the same."
4. The above judgment was not challenged and, therefore, it has attained finality . The probe regarding the affidavit submitted by the Petitioner is definitely pursuant to the aforementioned direction of the august Supreme Court. It is not a simple case of disqualification under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. In case the probe leads to a conclusion that the affidavit and contents thereof were false, then grave consequences would follow . Neither the Commission nor this Court has the power or jurisdiction to interfere with the unambiguous directions given by the august Supreme Court vide the aforeme ntioned order . The power of the Commission to probe the falsity of the affidavit is conferred pursuant to the direction of the august Supreme Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Commission is bereft of jurisdiction under the Election Act, 2017, is misconceived. The consequences that would follow if the affidavit is found to be false upon completion of the probe have also been explicitly highlighted by the august Supreme Court in the aforementioned order .
5. It is, therefore, declared that completion of the probe regarding falsity or otherw ise of the affidavit submitted by the Petitioner is mandatory in the light of the direction given by the august Supreme Court. It can neither be avoided nor delayed by the Petitioner or the Commission. The Commission is, therefore, directed to complete the probe expeditiously and with due diligence , preferably within sixty days from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order . Likewise, the Petitioner is expected to establish his bonafides by participating in the proceedings regarding the probe relating to the affidavit, failing which it would amount to an attempt to frustrate the implementation of the unambiguous direction of the august Supreme Court. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order . The petition in hand is disposed-of with the expectation that the Commission will conclude its proceedings within the specified period and that no delay would be caused by or on behalf of the Petitioner .