Through this appeal the acceptance of Nomination Papers of respondent Mahmood Shaukat Bhatti has been challenged on the ground that he lacks the requisite academic qualification i,e, Bachelor's Degree to contest the elections.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent in the Nomination Papers filed in the last General Elections had mentioned his academic qualification as F.A but in the Nomination Papers filed by the respondent in the current' elections he has shown his educational qualification as a Bachelor of Business Administration from University of Central Arkanases issued in May, 1987, that if he was holder of this Degree he would have mentioned the same in the last Elections, that the equivalence Certificate granted by the University Grants Commission in respondent's favour is invalid, that he established contact with the Registrar, University of Central Arkanses through Internet and the reply received is that the respondent was enrolled as a student in the said University for one Semester only (January to May, 1986) but he was never issued any Degree.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent defended the order passed by the Returning Officer accepting respondent's Nomination Papers by submitting that the Degree issued by the University of Central Arkanses is a valid Degree which is sanctified by the equivalence certificate issued by the University Grants Commission and no detailed enquiry can be conducted by this Tribunal.
4. Heard.
5. This appeal was argued at length on 12.9-2002 and with the consent of the parties Mr.Sharjeel Adnan, Advocate was appointed as a Commission by this Court to establish a contact with the Registrar, University of Central Arkanses through Fax or Internet and seek verification as to whether the respondent was issued any Degree by the said University or not. The University Grants Commission was also directed to visit the Website of the afore-referred University and find out the factual position.
6. Today right at.The outset, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in terms of a compromise the respondent has withdrawn from contest and he is no longer a candidate, This position is confirmed by the appellant's learned counsel and he adds that in these circumstances, he may not press this appeal. However, on account of the issue raised, the exercise carried out by this Court in appointing an Advocate as a Commission and in directing the University Grants Commission to visit the Website of the University, we are not inclined to allow withdrawal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
7. The letter received from the Registrar of University of Central Arkanses by the learned counsel for the appellant on 9th of September, 2002 which has been placed on record as "Mark-A" reads as under:-- "I am able to verify that Mr.Bhatti was enrolled at the University of Central Arkanses one semester only from January to May of 1986, but I am unable to certify that he received any type of degree or certificate from this institution. Furthermore, the diploma copy you attached to your request was not one issued to this individual by this institution." The information received by the University Grants Commission through Internet is being placed on record as "Mark-B" and is as under:-- "I am unable to certify that Mr.Bhatti received any type of degree or certificate from the University of Central Arkanses, but he was enrolled at this institution for one semester only from January to May of 1986." The report of Mr.Sharjeel Adnan Sheikh, Advocate of this Court is "Mark-C" and is as under:-- "I have verified twice on telephone from Sheron Plumed Incharge Enrollment Certification in the office of Registrar of this University. She has confirmed the fax message of September, 9, 2002 to Mr.Farooq Amjad Meer and the copy of same has also been faxed to me on September 12, 2002.
She told me that this issue has thoroughly been probed. The degree shown to have been conferred on Mr.Shaukat Mahmood Bhatti on May 16,1987 is not genuine. The University of Central Arkanses Conway has not at all conferred this degree on Mr.Shaukat Mahmood Bhatti. He had merely attended this degree only one semester from January to May, 1986."
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised objection to the admissibility of reports received from Fax or Internet in these proceedings on the ground that unless the documents/reports are verified by an official of the Pakistan High Commission in USA, those cannot be considered. This objection of the learned counsel loses site of Article 164 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order which mandates that the Court may allow and use any evidence that is available through modern devices or techniques. The Computer technically is a modern technique and is well within the ambit of the afore-referred Article which reads as under:- "164. Production of evidence that has become available because of modern devices, etc.---In such cases as the Court may consider appropriate the Court may allow to be produced any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques." In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., para.59, admissibility of statement received through Computer was commented upon in terms as under:-- "In any civil proceedings a statement contained in a document produced by a Computer is, subject to rules of Court, admissible as evidence of any fact, stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible if; (1) the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period whether for profit or not, by anybody, whether corporate or not, or by any individual; (2) over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived; (3) throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and (4) the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities."
9. The evidence collected through Tape Recordings was held admissible by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in "Islamic" Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wali Khan (PLD 1976 SC 56).
9-A. There is no cavil to the proposition that the enquiry in these proceedings is summary in nature.
But if the basic Degree has been challenged, the relevant information with regard to its genuineness or otherwise is available on Internet and it is net seriously disputed that the information so received is from the competent authority of the institution concerned, no verification from Pakistan High Commission in U.S.A would be necessary. We, therefore, see no reason to discount it from consideration. Moreover, the information received has been further verified through the Commission appointed by this Court. The objection raised, therefore, has no substance and is accordingly repelled. Taking into account the afore-referred documents and the report of the Commission we are left with no manner of doubt that the respondent was never issued a Degree of Bachelor of Business Administration the so-called degree produced before the Returning Officer is a fake document and the respondent is not eligible to contest the elections as he lacks the basic educational qualification i,e, Bachelor's Degree in terms of section 99(1)(cc) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976.
10. Before parting with this judgment we would like to express our dismay over the lack of care and diligence demonstrated by the University Grants Commission in issuing a certificate of equivalence in favour of the respondent. It was on the basis of the said certificate that the Returning Officer accepted respondent's Nomination Papers. The University Grants Commission has laid down an elaborate procedure to verify a foreign degree when an application is made to it for issuing equivalence certificate. Unfortunately this procedure was not followed in this case and incorrect equivalence certificate was issued in favour of the respondent. This conduct on the part of the concerned officials in the University Grants Commission is not a flattering commentary on the working of an Institution which is entrusted with an onerous task. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Chairman, University Grants Commission, Islamabad for any action that he may deem appropriate.
11. For what has been discussed above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and the Nomination Papers of the respondent stand rejected.