IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
 
 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 411 TO 414 OF 2013 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18.4.2013 
passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in 
CPS No. 270 to 273 of 2013) 
 
 
Abdul Ghaoor Lehri 
…. Appellant 
(in all cases) 
 
Versus 
 
The Returning Officer, PB-29, Naseerabad-II & others 
…. Respondents 
(in all cases) 
 
 
 
For the Appellant 
 
Mr. Kamran Murtaza, ASC 
 
For the Respondents  
Mr. Zahoor ul Haq Chishti, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
(in CA 411/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nemo (in CA 412/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Raja Abdul Rehman, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, AOR 
(in CA 413/2013) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mian Abdul Rauf, ASC 
(in CA 414/2013) 
 
Date of hearing   
 
24.05.2013 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.- Through this single 
Judgment we intend to dispose of the civil appeals Nos. 411, 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
2 
412, 413 and 414 of 2013 as common questions of law and 
facts are involved in all of them and have arisen out of the 
same proceedings. 
 
2. 
 
Abdul Ghafoor Lehri, appellant through the instant 
appeals, by way of leave of this Court vide order dated 
7.5.2013, calls in question the legality of the order dated 
18.4.2013 passed by a Full Bench of the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta in Constitution Petition No. 270 of 2013 
whereby the same was dismissed against the order dated 
17.4.2013 passed by the Election Tribunal, Balochistan 
allowing the appeal against acceptance of nomination papers 
of the appellant. 
 
3. 
 
Succinctly, the facts forming background of the 
instant appeals are that the appellant filed his nomination 
papers to contest general elections, 2013 scheduled to be 
held on 11.5.2013 from PB-29-Naseerabad-II.  The contesting 
candidates, namely, Nazim-ud-Din Lehri, Ali Hassan Jamot, 
Muhammad Amin Umrani and Ahmad Bukhsh filed objections 
against the nomination of the appellant on the grounds that 
the appellant while contesting the general elections held in 
the year 2002 made different entries in his nomination papers 
qua his qualification on the basis of his Sanad which differ 
from the contents of nomination papers filed by him to 
contest general election, 2013, as such, his act is in-violation 
of Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
3 
Pakistan as he was not righteous, sagacious and Ameen in 
terms thereof.  The other objection for not showing the 
correct evaluation of his land was also enforced.  The learned 
Returning Officer on the day of scrutiny of nomination papers 
by overruling the objections filed by the respondents accepted 
the nomination papers of the appellant declared him eligible 
to contest the elections, 2013. 
 
4. 
 
Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders of the 
learned Returning Officer, the respondents filed election 
appeals before the learned Election Tribunal which were 
allowed.  Consequently, the nomination papers of the 
appellant were rejected and he was declared ineligible to 
contest general elections of 2013 and the Returning Officer 
was directed to exclude his name from the list of validly 
nominated candidates.  
 
5. 
 
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the 
appellant called in question the legality of the said order by 
filing constitutional petitions Nos. 270, 271, 272 and 273 of 
2013 before the learned High Court of Balochistan, Quetta 
which were dismissed by the said court through short order 
dated 18.4.2013 and recorded reasons thereof on 6.5.2013. 
The appellant still dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment 
filed civil petitions Nos. 505 to 508 of 2013 for leave to appeal 
challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta in which leave to appeal was granted 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
4 
inter-alia to consider the question as to whether validly, 
issued degree/Sanad by a Deeni Madrassa which was not 
found to be equivalent by the concerned University could 
disqualify the appellant in terms of Article 62 (f)(i) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, to 
contest the elections. 
 
6. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that 
the order dated 18.4.2013 passed by the Full Bench of the 
High Court of Balochistan is against law and facts of the case; 
that the learned Full Bench has misread and mis-appreciated 
the material available on record; that the Returning Officer 
after completing all codal formalities had rightly accepted his 
nomination papers but the learned Tribunal as well as the 
learned High Court have illegally set aside order of the 
Returning Officer; that the appellant was duly qualified to 
contest elections of 2013 as no condition of being graduate 
has been imposed to contest general elections the same 
having been erased from the statute, as such, both the 
learned Courts below have committed a patent illegality while 
upsetting well-reasoned order of the learned Returning Officer 
accepting the nomination papers of the appellant; that since 
the appellant has neither committed any sinful act nor 
cheated the Court while producing a Sanad from  Madrassa, 
as such, the conditions laid down by Article 62 of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot be 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
5 
imposed upon the appellant to declare him that he is not 
righteous, sagacious or Ameen whereas the position is 
otherwise and that since the appellant has been declared as 
returned candidate after contest of general elections, 2013 
under the orders of this Court, therefore, if the order 
impugned in these proceedings is not set-aside, the voters of 
his 
constituency 
will 
not 
only 
be 
deprived 
of 
their 
constitutional right to choose a representative of their choice 
but the constituency will also be left unattended/un-
represented, 
in 
such 
circumstances, 
the 
impugned 
judgment/order is liable to be set aside. 
 
7. 
 
On the other hand learned counsel for the 
respondents have vehemently opposed the contentions raised 
by the learned counsel for the appellant by contending that 
the appellant while contesting election for the seat of Nazim 
held in the year 2001 shown himself to be a matriculate and 
did not describe in the nomination papers that he was holding 
Sanad ul Fragh equivalent to B.A.; that the appellant passed 
Secondary School Examination (Matric) in the year 1983 
whereas he is alleged to have obtained Sanad-ul-Fragh in the 
year 1985, the question arises that when the appellant was 
possessing Sanad-ul-Fragh at the time of filing of nomination 
papers to contest Local Bodies election in the year 2001, why 
he had not shown himself to be holder of Sanad-ul-Fragh. 
Thus he cannot be said to be a righteous, sagacious and 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
6 
Ameen within the meaning of Article 62 of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and was not eligible to 
contest election; that the appellant after having been declared 
as a returned candidate on the basis of Sanad produced by 
him before the Returning Officer to contest election in the 
year 2002 was declared fake and forged, therefore, on the 
basis of the said findings the appellant was debarred from 
contesting elections of 2013 his candidature being hit by 
Article 62 (f)(i) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 as he, by his conduct, was not a righteous, 
sagacious or Ameen. 
 
8. 
 
We have heard arguments of learned counsel for 
the parties and also gone through the available record.   
 
9. 
 
Admittedly, the appellant at the time of filing of 
nomination papers to contest Local Bodies election in the year 
2001, declared his qualification as Matric only but in the 
general elections held in the year 2002, he produced a Sanad 
known as Sanad-ul-Fragh allegedly issued by Madrassa Al-
Quran-Ul-Arabia 
Behrul 
Uloom 
Qadria 
Abdullah 
Dahan 
Shikarpur which according to the appellant was equivalent to 
graduation.  But, since the appellant while filing his 
nomination papers for contesting Local Bodies elections in the 
year 2001 had disclosed his qualification as Matric and despite 
holding the said Sanad-ul-Fragh, non-mentioning of the said 
fact in his nomination papers to contest Local Bodies Election 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
7 
in the year 2002 amounts to concealment of facts.  Even 
otherwise, the course for obtaining the said Sanad is normally 
completed within six years but after passing the matriculation 
examination in the year 1983 how could it be possible for the 
appellant to pass the lengthy course within a short span of 
two years. Thus, genuineness of Sanad-ul-Fragh produced by 
him to contest the general elections in the year 2002 creates 
doubt in ones mind, the same being obtained without 
completing the educational course for the said Sanad.  
 
10.  
On the basis of the aforesaid Sanad his nomination 
papers were accepted and he was declared returned 
candidate. However, his election was challenged by one 
Muhammad Sadiq Umrani by filing an election petition under 
section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 
before the Election Tribunal alleging therein that the appellant 
was not qualified to contest election as he did not possess 
educational qualification as provided by Article 8-A of the 
Conduct of General Election Order, 2002 and the Sanad 
produced by him alongwith his nomination papers was firstly 
a bogus Sanad as he never studied in the Madrassa which 
issued the Sanad and secondly it was not equivalent to 
bachelor degree, the minimum qualification at the relevant 
time provided for becoming member of the Provincial 
Assembly.  The said election petition was contested by the 
appellant and the learned Election Tribunal on divergent 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
8 
pleadings of the parties framed as many as four issues.  After 
recording of the evidence of both the parties the learned 
Election Tribunal declared that the appellant was not qualified 
to contest election, as such, his election as member of the 
Balochistan Provincial Assembly from PB-29-Naseerabad-II 
Balochistan was declared void as a whole vide judgment 
dated 15.12.2003.  The said findings of the learned Election 
Tribunal were challenged by the appellant through an appeal 
in this Court which alongwith other appeals came up for 
hearing on 18.6.2009 when the same was disposed of having 
become infructuous by efflux of time.  The Sanad produced by 
the appellant while filing his nomination papers in the year 
2002 reveals that the same has been certified by the 
University as an equivalent certificate to enable the persons 
holding said Sanad to seek admission in M.A. Arabic/Islamic 
Culture and was not at all equated with B.A. degree normally 
issued by the University. Article 8-A of the Conduct of General 
Election Order, 2002 permitted only those persons to contest 
election of the Parliament or the Provincial Assembly who 
were at least graduate or any degree equivalent to the 
graduation 
and 
recognized 
by 
the 
University 
Grants 
Commission.  The appellant at that time was not admittedly a 
graduate within the meaning of Article 8-A of the Conduct of 
General Election Order, 2002.  It is also evident from the 
notification issued on 25th July, 2002, whereby the University 
Grants Commission accorded the requisite recognition and 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
9 
equivalence to those Sanads only which were issued by the 
institutions mentioned in the said Notification, namely, 
 
 
1. 
Wafaq-ul-Madaris,  
Markazi Office Gordon Town Sher ShahRoad, 
Multan.  
 
2. 
Tanzeem,-ul-Madaris Ahle-Sunnat, Jamia Naeemia 
Rizvia, Garhi Shaho, Lahore. 
 
3. 
Wafaq-ul-Madaris, Al-Salfia Hajiabad Post Code-
38600, Faisalabad. 
 
4. 
Wafaq-ul-Madaris 
Shia, 
Jamia-al-Muntazar, 
H. 
Block Model Town, Lahore. 
 
5. 
Rabita-ul-Madaris-Al-Islamia, 
Manzoor 
Road, 
Lahore. 
 
6. 
Jamia Islamia Minhaj-ul-Quran, 368 Model Town, 
Lahore. 
 
7. 
Jamia 
Taleemat-e-Islamia, 
Sargodha 
Road, 
Faisalabad. 
 
8. 
Jamia Ashrafia, Ferozepur Road, Lahore. 
 
9. 
Darul Uloom Mohammadia Ghousia Bhera, District 
Sargodha, 
 
10. 
Darul Uloom, Korangi, Karachi. 
 
 
 
11.  
According to the aforesaid list of the Madaris, the 
Madarassa which issued Sanad Fragh-ul-Uloom to the 
appellant does not figure anywhere in the said Notification 
and the University Grants Commission has restricted the 
grant of requisite status and recognition to the Sanads 
awarded by the institutions mentioned supra and had not 
extended the same to the institutions affiliated therewith.  
From the aforesaid Notifications, it is clear that the Sanad 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
10 
Fragh-ul-Uloom issued by the aforesaid Madrissa was certified 
by Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur as an equivalent 
certificate enabling the candidate to seek admission in M.A. 
Arabic/Islamic Culture and such equivalence certificate cannot 
be equated with B.A. degree normally issued by the University 
for other disciplines.  The said decision has been circulated by 
Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur through circular dated 
23.8.2002.  Since the University with which the Madrassa 
which issued the Sanad in question is affiliated itself notified 
that the equivalence certificate cannot be equated with B.A. 
degree, therefore, the appellant could not have contested the 
election on the basis of said Sanad.  This fact has already 
been taken note of by this Court in the case of Sanaullah 
Khan and others vs. District Returning Officer Mianwali and 
others (PLD 2005 S.C. 858) wherein it was held that UGC vide 
Notification No. 8-418/Acad/82/128 dated November 17, 
1982 declared that the Sanad of Shahadat-ul-Almiyya-fil-
Uloomil-Arabia-Wal-Islamia granted by a Deeni Madrassa 
whose name finds mention therein shall be considered 
equivalent to M.A. in Arabic/Islamic Studies for the purpose of 
teaching 
Arabic/Islamic 
Studies 
in 
the 
colleges 
and 
Universities and for pursuing higher studies in Arabic and 
Islamic Studies. However, for employment other than 
teaching, Sanad holders were required to qualify in two 
additional subjects other than Arabic and Islamic studies at 
B.A. level of a University.  They have also to qualify in the 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
11 
newly introduced subjects of Elective Pakistan Studies and 
Islamic Studies at the B.A. level.  In such circumstances, it is 
crystal clear as light of the day that as held by this Court in 
the case referred supra the Sanad produced by the appellant 
while contesting election in the year 2002 was not at all equal 
to B.A. degree, thus, he was not qualified to be elected or 
chosen as a member of the Provincial Assembly. 
 
12.  
Since the Sanad produced by the appellant while 
contesting election, 2002 has been declared not equivalent to 
B.A. degree for the reasons mentioned in the preceding 
paragraphs, therefore, appellant was not at all qualified to 
contest election.  Now the question arises as to whether the 
appellant is disqualified to contest election, 2013 or not.  In 
this regard it is noticed that while producing aforesaid Sanad, 
the appellant sworn an affidavit to the effect that the Sanad 
produced by him was issued to him by a recognized institution 
and equivalent to a bachelor degree made false statement 
and submitted false or incorrect declaration in respect of his 
educational 
qualification, 
thus, 
he 
was 
not 
righteous, 
sagacious, non-profligate, honest and Ameen within the 
meaning of Article 62(f) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as such, was not qualified to be 
elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora. 
 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
12 
13.  
Since as per conclusions drawn by this Court in 
Sanaullah Khan’s case (supra) that the appellant knowingly 
and deliberately submitted a degree for becoming a 
parliamentarian which was not equivalent to B.A., therefore, 
had not only committed an offence by doing so but also 
defrauded the voters and the nation, as such, was disqualified 
to contest the election for not fulfilling the conditions 
contained in Article 62(1)(d) and (f) of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. This Court in the case of 
Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial vs. Jamshaid Alam and others 
(PLD 2013 SC 179) has 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. 
 
Relevant 
paras 
therefrom 
are 
reproduced 
hereinblow:- 
 
“10. ….It  is  to  be  noted  that Article 62(1)(f), as 
it stood prior to 18th Constitutional Amendment, 
provides that a person shall not be qualified to 
elected or chosen as a Member of Majlis-e-Shoora 
(Parliament) unless he is sagacious, righteous, non-
profligate, honest and ameen. It is clear from the 
plain reading of the said Article that there is no 
restriction upon the Court/Tribunal to declare any 
person to be not sagacious, righteous or ameen. 
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 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
13 
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 respondent (therein) is thus not 
worthy of credence and cannot be allowed to be 
entrusted with State responsibilities of Law Making; 
to be in-charge of the National Exchequre or be 
eligible to represent the people of Pakistan.” 
“12. In a recent case tiled as Syed Mehmood 
Akhtar 
Naqvi, 
 
v. 
Federation 
of 
Pakistan  
(Constitution Petition No.5 of 2012) this Court has 
held that whoever makes false declaration at the 
time of filing of nomination papers, makes himself 
liable to be disqualified from being elected or 
chosen 
as 
Member 
of 
the 
Majlis-e-Shoora 
(Parliament) or a Provincial Assembly for making 
misstatement or concealment of fact, and also 
exposes 
himself 
to 
criminal 
proceedings 
contemplated under sections 193, 196, 198 and 
199, P.P.C. “ 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
14 
14.  
In the instant case, the appellant has failed to 
meet the criteria set out for proposed candidates under Article 
62(1) (d) & (f) of the Constitution and sub-sections (d), (e), 
(f) and (g) of section 99 of the Representation of People Act, 
1976.  It may be noted that under Article 63 of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan there are 
certain disqualifications which are of temporary nature and a 
person disqualified under Article 63 can become qualified after 
lapse of certain period as mentioned therein, whereas, the 
requirement of Article 62 are of permanent nature and a 
person has to fulfill certain qualifications/conditions to become 
eligible to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-
Shoora (Parliament), otherwise, he is not eligible to be a 
Member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).  For this reason 
alone, Article 62 does not provide any period after which a 
person, who was declared disqualified under the said Article, 
can be eligible to contest the elections of the Parliament.  In 
such view of the matter we hold that a person who is not 
qualified under Article 62(1)(f) cannot become qualified by 
efflux of time.  Reference in this regard may also be made to 
the case of Imtiaz Ahmed Lali v. Ghulam Muhammad Lali (PLD 
2007 SC 369).  In such circumstances the appellant has 
rightly been disqualified to be elected as member of the 
Parliament by the learned Election Tribunal by allowing the 
election appeal filed against acceptance of his nomination 
papers by the Returning Officer which findings were upheld by 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
15 
the High Court of Balochistan. In view of the facts and 
circumstances of the case and the material available on 
record we are of the view that the findings of the learned High 
Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record 
and the law on the subject.   
15.  
Even otherwise, the order, in the earlier round of 
litigation, passed by the learned Election Tribunal accepting 
the election petition filed by the contesting candidates qua 
election 2002 and disqualifying the appellant to be the 
member of the Parliament has attained finality for the reason 
that although the appellant had challenged his disqualification 
before this Court by filing a civil appeal, yet, it was not 
decided on merits and was disposed of having become 
infructuous on the statement of learned counsel for the 
appellant.  Since the appellant was not qualified to contest the 
elections, therefore, his success in the general elections held 
under the stay order granted by this Court while granting 
leave to appeal, cannot be helpful to him as the question of 
his disqualifications has to be decided by this Court in the 
instant proceedings in continuation of rejection of his 
nomination papers and no premium of his success in the 
election could be given to him as he was not qualified to 
contest the election being not sagacious, righteous, non-
profligate and honest and Ameen. 
 
C.As. 411 to 414/2013 
16 
16.  
For what has been discussed above, we find no 
merit in these appeals which are hereby dismissed with costs. 
As a sequel to the aforesaid findings, we set-aside the 
election of PB-29-Naseerabad-II held on 11.5.2013 and direct 
the Election Commission of Pakistan to hold fresh election in 
the said constituency accordingly.  
 
17.  
These are the reasons of our short order of even 
dated announced in open Court. 
 
Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
24th May, 2013 
(Zulfiqar) 
 
 
 
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING