The appeal in hand is aimed at calling in question the legality of order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Returning Officer of PP-24 Jhelum-I, whereby the nomination papers of Wajid Ur Rehman (appellant) were rejected.
2. The facts forming basis of instant election appeal can be summarized to the effect that with the desire to contest upcoming elections of Punjab Provincial Assembly, Wajid Ur Rehman (appellant) filed his nomination papers in PP-24; that during scrutiny process it unearthed that the appellant is in possession of a passport No.560993251 issued by the Government of United Kingdom; that on this score alone, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of the appellant vide order dated 30.12.2023, which is impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order passed by the Returning Officer is contrary to law on the subject; that the appellant has already initiated the process to surrender his foreign nationality on 26.09.2023; that the moving of application by the appellant manifests his intention to relinquish UK Nationality, thus rejection of his nomination papers was uncalled for; that even otherwise Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) was wrongly interpreted by the Returning Officer; that for giving effect to the afore-mentioned Article accusation of foreign nationality is to be read in conjunction with the condition that the citizen has ceased to be a Pakistani national and that since the impugned order suffers from perversity, thus is to be set-aside.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan entered appearance on Court's call and supported the order passed by the Returning Officer while placing reliance upon Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution with the argument that its language is unambiguous, thus is to be given effect.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In an urge to contest upcoming general election of Punjab Provincial Assembly, Wajid Ur Rehman (appellant) submitted his nomination papers before the Returning Officer of PP-24 Jhelum-I.
During scrutiny process, carried out under Section 62 of the Election Act, 2017, the nomination papers of the appellant met the fate of rejection vide impugned order dated 30.12.2023. The solitary reason which prompted the Returning Officer to reject the nomination papers of appellant was his foreign nationality.
7. There is no denial from the appellant that he is a dual nationality holder having in his possession passport No.560993251 issued by the Government of United Kingdom. For contesting election, a candidate has to submit his nomination papers in accordance with the requirement of Section 60 of the Election Act, 2017. The detail of documents forming part of the nomination papers is mentioned in subsection 2 of Section 60 which includes a declaration by the candidate that he fulfills the qualification specified in Article 62 of the Constitution and does not come within the disqualification enumerated in Article 63 of the Constitution. According to Article 63(1)(c) a person is held disqualified from being elected or chosen as member of parliament if he ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan or acquires the citizenship of a foreign State.
8. I have attended to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant with utmost circumspection whereby she made an endeavour to convince this Tribunal that a foreign national will become disqualified from contesting election only if he ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan.
Learned counsel mainly focused on the ground that the word 'or' used in Article 63 between the condition of ceasing of Pakistan nationality and accusation of foreign citizenship in fact is to be read as 'and'. Suffice it to say in this regard that the question raised today by learned counsel for the appellant has already been dealt by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Suo Motu case No.8 of 2018 reported as PLD 2019 Supreme Court 201 through which the fate of four Senators in reference to their membership of Parliament was decided. The Supreme Court of Pakistan after examining Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, Section 14 (3) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 and conjunctive and disjunctive use of word 'or' and word 'and' in Para-25 observed as under:- "Thus, the conclusion drawn by this Court in the case reported as Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1089), that the word 'or' used in Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution is disjunctive and that a person holding a dual nationality of a foreign State though legally in view of section 14(3) of the Act of 1951, nevertheless will not be entitled to be elected or chosen as, or hold the Office of a Member of Parliament, is correct interpretation of the Constitution and does not merit any reconsideration. Incidentally, the aforesaid view has been reiterated by this court in its judgments reported as Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Islamabad and others (PLD 2013 SC 413) and Sadiq Ali Memon v. Returning Officer, NA-237, Thatta-I and others (2013 SCMR 1246)."
With the afore-mentioned interpretation of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution the Senators with dual nationality were de-seated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
9. I have also given a considered thought to the stance of the appellant that he has initiated the process for the relinquishment of his foreign nationality and indeed has moved an application in this regard. In support of such claim, a document purported to be a print out of Email dispatched by the appellant is annexed with the instant appeal. I have carefully scanned the document and it evinces therefrom that the particulars of the recipient of the Email are not mentioned therein. Even if the credentials of the print out annexed with the appeal are above board, still it only depicts that the appellant has initiated the process of renunciation of his foreign nationality which has yet not attained finality. Inexorably, Wajid Ur Rehman (appellant) is a foreign national even today as his request for relinquishment of UK nationality is still awaited. As a necessary consequence, it can unambiguously be gathered that the appellant is still enjoying his foreign nationality, thus his nomination papers are hit by the impediment contained in Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution. In support of the view so formed by this Tribunal an observation of the Division Bench of this Court given in case reported as Sayed Anwar Hasanat v. Returning Officer PP-27, Jhelum (IV) (2013 CLC 1821) is being quoted hereunder:- "We are afraid we are unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant for the reasons that firstly the appellant has only moved an application for renouncing/surrendering his U.S Citizenship. The said application was made on 25-3-2013. The U.S. Authorities are still to pass an order upon the appellant's application. As such as at the date of filing of his nomination papers as also on the date of the scrutiny the appellant was/is still a U.S Citizen. Even today the learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to show us any document from U.S. Authorities showing that the appellant's application for surrendering/renouncing U.S Citizenship has been accepted."
While taking advantage of the proposition in hand, I also deem it appropriate to mention here that in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Election Commission of Pakistan to organize elections and for ensuring that it is conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law while guarding the corrupt practices. In reference to Article 218(3) the role of Returning Officer in holding of general elections is of pivotal importance. This is the primary duty of Returning Officer to ensure that no person who by law is not eligible to contest elections be ousted from the electoral process at the very initial stage of scrutiny under Section 62 of the Election Act, 2017. While scrutinizing the nomination papers the Returning Officer must make a just, fair and unbiased assessm ent about the credentials of the candidate for making decision that he is qualified or not to contest the elections. The Supreme Court of Pakistan highlighted the role of the Returning Officer in the case of Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmad Khan v. Chief Election Commissioner Islamabad and others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 817) in the following manner:- "A perusal of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions would reveal that a Returning Officer appointed under section 7 of the Representation of the People Act of 1976 is the key-man in the entire exercise of conducting an honest, a just and a fair election in accordance with law, as commanded by Article 218 of the Constitution. Needless to add that the first and most crucial step towards the attainment of the said commanded goal is to ensure that no person who is not constitutionally and legally qualified to contest any such election is allowed to enter the arena."
10. In the light of what has been discussed above, the instant Election Appeal having no merits is dismissed in limine.