' Petitioners filed their nomination papers as candidates for Nazim and Naib Nazim. Vide order, dated 2-5-2001, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of petitioner No,1 on the ground that he was not qualified to be a candidate in terms of section 14(d), his appeal before the District Returning Officer was dismissed on 5-5-2001 on the grounds that the order passed by the Returning Officer referred to above did not reflect any illegality as petitioner No,1 was a convict involving ,a charge of moral turpitude.
2. Both these orders have been called in question and the precise submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are as under:---
(i) that the expression corrupt practice used in section 14(k) has to be read alongwith section 22 of the same Ordinance would indicate that the corrupt practice is relatable to a practice defined for the purposes of Election Laws;
(ii) that the expression moral turpitude used in the afore-referred provisions of law has nexus with the corrupt practice as defined and used under section 22 of the Punjab Local Government Election Ordinance;
(iii) that section 78 of People Representation Act XLV of 1978 defines corrupt practice and the conduct of the petitioner does not fall within the mischief of the afore-referred provision; and
(iv) that Rule 16 framed under section 38 of the Punjab Local Council Election Ordinance, 2000 is violative of fundamental rights and is, therefore, ultra vires of the Constitution inasmuch as in the event of rejection of nomination papers of Nazim or Naib Nazim the other candidates also entails the penalty of rejection.
' In support of the' submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners relies on "Muhammad Tariq Chaudhruy, Member Senate of Pakistan Islamabad v. Syed Mansoor Ahsan and 3 others "(PLD 1991 Lah. 200) and Dr. Kamal Hussain and 7 others v. Muhammad Sirajul Islam and others (PLD 1969 SC 42).
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents, on the other hand, defended the impugned orders on the ground that a conviction passed on a charge involving moral turpitude entails a disqualification for all times to come and petitioner No,1 has rightly been disqualified. It was further submitted that the Nawabpur incident which was subject-matter of the case registered vide F.I.R.
No,52 1984, dated 31-3-1984 under sections 307/326/354/452/148/149, P.P.C. And 16 M.P.O. Was an incident which brought bad name to the country and petitioner No,1 was convicted on two counts i.e, under section 354, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years' R.I. And under section 302, P.P.C.
Sentenced to 7 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,10,000 and Rs,5 lacs respectively.
4. Heard.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar and we have also gone through the precedent case law, to which, reference was made during the course of arguments.
6. A bare reading of various provisions of the Punjab Local Government Election Ordinance, 2000 and the Rules framed thereunder would indicate that the Legislature wanted to lay down a procedure as also law to ensure that the Institutions of Public representation comprise of men and women who have clean record, who enjoy good moral character, who are not guilty of misuse of public authority so that these Offices and Institutions inspire certain credibility and confidence which have eluded the nation for quite sometime. The law has to be interpreted with this legislative intent in mind. Section 14 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2000 lays down qualifications.
Clauses (k), (1) and (r) reads as under:--- "(k) has not been convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction on a charge of corrupt practice involving moral turpitude or misuse of power of authority under any law for the time being in force;
(1) has not been sentenced to imprisonment for more than three months for an offence under any law and, a period of not less than five years had elapsed since his release; and in case of a member or a holder of a public office, has not been sentenced to imprisonment; and (r) has not been and is not involved, in activities prejudicial to the ideology, interest, security, unity, solidarity, peace and integrity of Pakistan and its people, and the good order and harmony of society."
7. The expression moral turpitude used in clause (k) referred to above cannot be limited to corrupt practice qua election alone. This question came up for consideration before a Division Bench and it was held as under in "Muhammad Shabbir Abbasi v. Abdur Rashid MughaV (1984 CLC 270 Lah.) at page 276.
"'What constitutes' moral turpitude' or what may he held as such, in one case, May not apply in another situation. We are presently concerned with electoral law. What action involves moral turpitude in respect of persons who hold public elective offices, must have particular reference to what individuals and the society regard or except as correct and upright conduct and behaviour, which persons holding such offices should possess. This Court in Muhammad Saif Ullah Khan's case PLD 1982 Lah. 77 had the opportunity of examining para- graph (aaa) of clause (2) of Article 10 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, which provided that a person stood disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of Parliament if he acted in any manner prejudicial to morality. In that case, this Court held that the word 'morality was not used in any narrow sense but in a general sense, such as the law of conscious; the aggregate of those rules and principles of ethics which relate to upright behaviour and right conduct of elected representatives and which prescribe the standards to which their actions should not be forgotten that the word 'morality' was to be interpreted in respect of legislation dealing with the elected representatives of the people and, therefore, its broad and general meaning had to be applied.'
8. Examined in the light of the afore- referred observation we note that the transaction which led to the conviction of petitioner No,1 did involve a charge amounting to moral turpitude.
9. A bare reading of the F.I.R. Which has been placed on record is marked 'A' shows that the petitioner No,1 alongwith others attacked the complainant party including the women-folk made them naked caused injuries to some and murdered one person. These charges it is not denied were proved and he alongwith others were convicted. It was after this shocking incident which was highlighted in international media that section 354-A, P.P.C. Was added. The conduct of petitioner No,1 would in these circumstances fall within the mischief of section I4(k) and (r) referred to above.
10. So far as the challenge to Rule 16 of Election Rules, 2000 is concerned, on account of paucity of time we did not have the elaborate assistance on this particular question. However, we intend to hold that the fundamental rights as given in the Constitution are subject to law and the Elections Ordinance, 2000 and the Rules framed thereunder are valid laws under which the election process is being regulated. Secondly the intention of rule 16 which contemplates joint candidature of Nazim and Naib-Nazim was that both the candidates for the afore-referred posts should be careful in selecting their running mates and if a candidate opts someone who is disqualified to be a member then he too has to suffer alongwith him.
11. For the afore-referred reasons we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed.