IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate/Original Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL 
 
 
SUO MOTU CASE NO.8 OF 2018 AND CIVIL MISC. 
APPLICATION NO.649-L OF 2018 IN SUO MOTU CASE NO.8 
OF 2018 
 
 
 
S.M.C.8/2018: 
Regarding 
dual 
nationality 
of 
Parliamentarians 
 
 
C.M.A.649-L/2018: Impleadment application by Shahzad Ali 
Khan 
 
 
In attendance: 
Syed Nayyar Abbas Rizvi, Addl. A.G.P. 
a/w Barrister Minaal Tariq 
Syed Ali Zafar, ASC 
(For Mr. Haroon Akhtar) 
Mr. Aleem Baig Chughtai, ASC 
(For Mrs. Nuzhat Sadiq) 
Mr. Hamid Khan, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Rashid Hanif, ASC 
(For Ch. Muhammad Sarwar) 
Mr. Ahmer Bilal Soofi, ASC 
(For Ms. Saadia Abbasi) 
Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa, Sr. ASC 
(In C.M.A.649-L/2018) 
Mr. Bilal Hassan Minto, ASC 
(Amicus Curiae) 
Mr. Muhammad Arshad, D.G. (Law) 
(For ECP) 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
17.10.2018 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
2 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.- During the course of 
hearing of Suo Motu Case No.3 of 2018, pertaining to 
dual nationality of Civil Servants and Officials of 
Autonomous Bodies, etc., it came to light that at least 
four newly elected Senators, namely, Ch. Muhammad 
Sarwar, Mr. Haroon Akhtar Khan, Ms. Nuzhat Sadiq and 
Ms. Saadia Abbasi, held dual nationality and apparently 
no conclusive evidence of their having renounced or 
relinquished such foreign nationality was available. 
Consequently, vide Order dated 05.03.2018, notices were 
directed to be issued for 8th of March, 2018, to the 
aforesaid newly elected Senators to provide proof of 
relinquishments of their foreign nationality. 
2. 
 
In pursuance to the aforesaid notices, the said 
Senators entered appearance before this Court on 8th of 
March, 2018. On the said date, Mr. Bilal Hassan Minto, 
learned ASC and Mr. Khalid Javed, learned ASC, were 
both appointed as amicus curiae. Notices were also issued 
to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the 
case was adjourned to 10th of March, 2018. On the said 
date i.e. 10th of March, 2018, the matter was referred to 
the present Larger Bench. The instant Larger Bench was 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
3 
tasked with the interpretation of Article 63(1)(c) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, 
along with the provisions of Section 14 of the Pakistan 
Citizenship Act, 1951 (Act of 1951), and to examine 
whether the law as laid down in the previous judgments 
of this Court mentioned in the aforesaid Order dated 
10.03.2018, needed to be revisited. The relevant portion 
of the Order dated 10.03.2018, is reproduced hereunder 
for ease of reference: 
 
“… in order to interpret the provisions of 
Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, 
whether a person acquiring citizenship of 
another country is permanently debarred 
and disqualified to contest the election 
for the Parliament and also to examine 
whether the law laid down in the 
judgment reported as Syed Mehmood 
Akhtar 
Naqvi 
Vs. 
Federation 
of 
Pakistan through Secretary Law and 
others (PLD 2012 SC 1089) is a correct 
enunciation of law while interpreting the 
aforesaid Article (supra) as also the 
provisions of Section 14 of the Pakistan 
Citizenship Act 1951, we issue notice to 
all concerned and the matter must be 
fixed before a larger Bench to be 
constituted by the Honourable Chief 
Justice of Pakistan. As far as the interim 
relief is concerned, in the light of the law 
laid down in the judgment reported as 
Syed Masroor Ahsan Vs. Muhammad 
Tariq Chaudhry and others (1991 
SCMR 668), we allow the Election 
Commission of Pakistan to issue the 
notice of the candidates those have been 
succeeded in the elections. Office is 
directed 
to 
separately 
number 
this 
aspect of the matter from the main case 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
4 
which is regarding Dual national of 
Hon’ble Judges and Officials of Courts 
and Government officers.” 
   
3. 
 
On behalf of Mr. Haroon Akhtar Khan, a 
concise statement i.e. Civil Misc. Application No.8461 of 
2018, was filed, followed by another Civil Misc. 
Application bearing No.8599 of 2018. Through the latter 
application i.e. CMA No.8599 of 2018, an affidavit was 
filed wherein it was deposed by Mr. Haroon Akhtar Khan 
that in the year 2014 when he was contemplating to 
contest the elections for the Senate, he tore his Canadian 
Passport and the Citizenship Card and mailed these 
documents back to Canada. As per his understanding, 
such 
an 
act 
was 
the 
procedure 
necessary 
for 
relinquishing a Canadian citizenship. However, appended 
with Civil Misc. Application bearing No.8599 of 2018, was 
a copy of an “Application To Renounce Canadian 
Citizenship under subsection 9(1)” (available at page 4 of 
the said CMA). This application appears to have been 
singed by him on 2nd of February, 2018. Furthermore, on 
a Court query, Syed Ali Zafar, learned ASC, appearing on 
behalf of Mr. Haroon Akhtar Khan, informed the Court 
that 
the 
process 
of 
relinquishment 
of 
Canadian 
citizenship though initiated in terms of the applicable 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
5 
Canadian law has till date not been completed and 
concluded. Thus, admittedly on the date of filing of the 
Nomination Papers for the elections to the Senate, in 
2018, and even upon the hearing of these instant 
proceedings Mr. Haroon Akhtar Khan, in law, was and 
continued to be a Canadian citizen. 
4. 
 
However, 
Syed 
Ali 
Zafar, 
learned 
ASC 
contended that Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, must 
be interpreted in the context of globalization, which has 
led to the metaphoric shrinking of the world, and an 
archaic interpretation is no longer valid. It was also 
contended that the said Article must be read in 
conjunction with the Fundamental Rights, as guaranteed 
under 
Article 
17 
of 
the 
Constitution, 
and 
an 
interpretation limiting the right of a citizen contest 
elections or to hold Public Office should be avoided. He 
further contended that nationality of an enemy State 
alone could be an impediment in holding a Public Office 
or from being a Member of Parliament in Pakistan. 
However, the mainstay of the contentions of the learned 
counsel was that in the phrase “ceases to be a citizen of 
Pakistan, or acquires the citizenship of a foreign State” as 
appearing in Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, the word 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
6 
‘or’ must be read as ‘and’. Consequently, unless the 
acquisition 
of 
citizenship 
of 
a 
foreign 
State 
simultaneously results in loss of citizenship of Pakistan, 
the disqualification from being elected or chosen as a 
Member of Parliament, including the Senate, does not 
arise. In this behalf, he referred to the judgment of the 
learned Lahore High Court, reported as Umar Ahmad 
Ghumman v. Government of Pakistan and others (2002 
Lahore 521) and contended that the dictum of this Court 
as laid down in the case reported as Syed Mehmood 
Akhtar  Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan through 
Secretary Law and others (PLD 2012 SC 1089), needs to 
be revisited and reconsidered.  
5. 
 
Mr. Ahmer Bilal Soofi, learned ASC appearing 
on behalf of Ms. Saadia Abbasi, adopted the contentions 
of Syed Ali Zafar, learned counsel for Mr. Haroon Akhtar 
Khan, on the legal plane. However, on the factual aspect 
of the matter, it was contended that indeed Ms. Saadia 
Abbasi, was, at one point of time, a citizen of the United 
States of America, however, she has renounced her such 
nationality through an affirmation dated 08.02.2018. A 
copy whereof was appended with Civil Misc. Application 
No.651 of 2018, filed on her behalf. It was further 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
7 
contended that such an affirmation has been accepted on 
20.02.2018 and a “Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the 
United States” was issued, (available at page 3 of the said 
CMA), which also bears the Certificate of Loss of 
Nationality 
from 
the 
Overseas 
Citizens 
Services 
Department of State. The learned counsel referred to the 
printed note on the foot of the document of renunciation 
of nationality of United States of America, available at 
page 5 of the said CMA, which reads as follows: 
 
“Note: A renunciation of United States 
nationality/citizenship is effective only 
upon approval by the U.S. Department of 
State but when approved, the loss of 
nationality/citizenship occurs as of the 
date the above Oath/Affirmation was 
taken.” 
 
6. 
 
On the basis of the aforesaid documents, it was 
contended that in fact Ms. Saadia Abbasi had ceased to 
be an American citizen with effect from 08.02.2018, when 
affirmation was made, hence, she was not disqualified 
from being elected or chosen as a Senator nor from 
holding such an Office.  
7. 
 
On behalf of Ms. Nuzhat Sadiq, a copy of 
Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States 
dated 09.02.2012, was filed, which was purportedly 
approved by the Overseas Citizens Services Department 
of State on 23.03.2012. The learned counsel contended 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
8 
that she was not an American citizen at the time when 
she submitted her Nomination Papers for the elections to 
the Senate of Pakistan.  
8. 
 
Similarly, on behalf of Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, 
it was contended that he has relinquished his British 
citizenship and to evidence the same he filed a copy of 
“Declaration of Renunciation of British Citizenship, 
British Overseas Citizenship, British Overseas Territories 
Citizenship, British National (Overseas) or British Subject 
Status” dated 02.07.2013, alongwith a letter from the 
Home Office, UK Border Agency, dated 18.07.2013, which 
confirmed the renunciation of his British citizenship. A 
Certificate 
dated 
09.03.2018 
from 
British 
High 
Commission, 
Islamabad, 
confirming 
that 
he 
had 
renounced his citizenship in July, 2013, has also been 
filed on his behalf. 
9. 
 
Mr. Bilal Hassan Minto, learned ASC, amicus 
curiae, contended that the true impact of Article 63(1)(c) 
of the Constitution is that a person who ceases to be a 
citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the citizenship of a foreign 
State, is not qualified to be elected or chosen as a 
Member of Parliament. With regard to the acquisition of 
nationality of another State, he contended that such an 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
9 
acquisition 
triggers 
the 
disqualification 
under 
the 
aforesaid 
provision 
of 
the 
Constitution 
and 
the 
disqualification 
was 
permanent. 
Subsequent 
relinquishment/renunciation of citizenship of a foreign 
State, in his view, would not cure the disqualification in 
terms of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution. The learned 
ASC further contended that even otherwise, such 
relinquishment or renunciation of citizenship of a foreign 
State would require interpretation of the laws of such 
State.  It is added that the foreign law in view of Article 
59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, is considered 
to be a question of fact. This Court should avoid 
venturing into the domain of interpretation of any foreign 
law. The only exception, perhaps, would be an admitted 
document 
clearly, 
unequivocally 
and 
conclusively 
evidencing 
such 
relinquishment/renunciation 
of 
citizenship. 
10.  
The learned Additional Attorney General for 
Pakistan canvassed at the bar that the true and faithful 
interpretation of the provisions of Articles 62 and 63 of 
the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the 
Elections Act, 2017, and also the  Pakistan Citizenship 
Act, 1951, leave no manner of doubt that, a person, who 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
10
is  a citizen of Pakistan and  acquires the citizenship of a 
foreign State, is not qualified to contest the elections until 
and unless, he renounces the citizenship of the foreign 
State  and such an act of renunciation is complete under 
the laws of the said foreign State. In this behalf, he 
referred to the laws of the United Kingdom, United States 
of America and Canada to contend that at the relevant 
point of time, Ms. Saadia Abbasi and Mr. Haroon Akhtar 
Khan were and the latter continues to be a citizen of a 
foreign State, hence, are disqualified to be elected or 
chosen and from being a Member of Parliament, 
including the Senate. With regard to Ch. Muhammad 
Sarwar and Ms. Nuzhat Sadiq, the learned Additional 
Attorney General for Pakistan took up the plea that the 
documents submitted by them to establish their effective 
renunciation of citizenship of the foreign State prior to 
filing of their Nomination Papers for the elections to the 
Senate, need to be authenticated and verified and the 
Federation is ready, able and willing to facilitate such 
verification. He, however, did not endorse the view of Mr. 
Bilal Hassan Minto, amicus curiae that disqualification 
arising from acquiring the citizenship of a foreign State is 
permanent and submitted that such disqualification 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
11
would cease upon the legally effective renunciation and 
the relinquishment of the citizenship of the foreign State. 
11.  
Heard. Available record perused.  
12.  
The primary contention canvassed at the bar by 
Syed Ali Zafar, learned ASC that the word ‘or’ as 
appearing in Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, is to be 
read as ‘and’. Therefore, the lack of qualification 
mentioned in the said sub-article would only be 
attracted, if a person ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan on 
account of having acquired the citizenship of another 
country; therefore, a dual nationality i.e. being a citizen 
of Pakistan and of another country, if so, permitted by 
the laws of Pakistan, would continue to be eligible to be 
elected or chosen as a Member of Parliament, as such 
duality of citizenship does not imply the loss of the 
citizenship of Pakistan.  
13.  
There can be no escape from the fact that in 
common parlance ‘and’ is used in the conjunctive sense, 
while ‘or’ is employed in the disjunctive sense. It is 
equally true that in legislative instruments, the words 
‘and’ 
and 
‘or’ 
may 
in 
certain 
circumstances 
be 
interchangeable. In this behalf, reference may be made to 
the passage from the Maxwell on Interpretation of 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
12
Statutes, 12th Edition at page 232, wherein it is stated as 
follows: 
 
“In ordinary usage, “and” is conjunctive 
and “or” disjunctive. But to carry out 
the intention of the legislature it may be 
necessary to read “and” in place of 
conjunctive “or”, and vice versa.” 
 
 
 
 
       (emphasis supplied) 
 
In Bindra’s Interpretation of Statutes 7th Edition at page 
537, it is stated as follows: 
 
“Conjunctive and disjunctive words.--
The word “and” in a statute may be read 
as “or” and vice versa, whenever the 
change is necessary to effectuate the 
obvious intention of the Legislature. The 
Courts should, however, have recourse 
to this exceptional rule of construction 
only when the conversion of the words 
“and” and “or” one into the other, is 
necessary to carry into effect the 
meaning and the intention of the 
Legislature; or produces unintelligent or 
absurd result. …” 
 
 
 
 
   (emphasis supplied) 
 
14.  
The learned Lahore High Court in its judgment 
reported as Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari and 37 others v. 
Sh. 
Muhammad 
Rashid, 
Chairman, 
Federal 
Land 
Commission and another (PLD 1981 Lahore 159), held as 
follows: 
 
“58. Even 
otherwise, 
it 
is 
not 
a 
conclusive rule of interpretation that the 
word ‘and’ is to be always used 
conjunctively. In fact it is for the Court 
to interchange these words to save 
redundancy, anomaly absurdity or to 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
13
conform to the clear intention of the 
Legislature. …” 
 
 
 
 
 
(emphasis supplied) 
 
This Court, in its judgment reported as Khadim Hussain 
and another v. The Additional District Judge, Faisalabad 
and others (PLD 1990 SC 632), after taking note of the 
aforesaid passages in the treatises on the Interpretation 
of Statutes as well as the aforesaid judgment of the 
learned Lahore High Court and the judgments reported 
as Salehon and others v. The State (PLD 1969 SC 267), 
Federation of Pakistan v. Hazoor Bukhsh and 2 others 
(PLD 1983 FSC 255), Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari and 
37 others v. Sh. Muhammad Rashid, Chairman, Federal 
Land Commission and another (PLD 1981 Lahore 159), 
Muhammad Hussain v. The Additional District Judge, 
Lahore and others [PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lahore 128], 
Muhammad Amin v. Sh. Jamshed Ali [PLD 1963 (W.P.) 
Lahore 523], Badsha Mian v. The State (PLD 1966 Dacca 
1), Chief Inspector of Factories, U.P. v. V.K. Modi (AIR 
1952 Allahabad 804), The King v. Governor of Brixton 
Prison Ex parte Bidwell [(1937) 1 KB 305] and R. v. Oakes 
[(1959) 2 All E.R.] and held as follows: 
 
“4. 
From the above-cited cases and 
the 
passage 
from 
the 
well-known 
treatises 
on 
the 
Interpretation 
of 
Statutes, it is evident that the words 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
14
“and” and “or” are interchangeable and 
the word “and” can be construed as “or” 
and vice versa if the change is necessary 
to effectuate the obvious intention of the 
law-maker 
or 
the 
statutory 
rules 
framer.” 
 
 
 
 
    (emphasis supplied) 
 
15.  
Thus, it appears that no doubt occasionally 
‘and’ may be used disjunctively and ‘or’ conjunctively. 
Both can be used interchangeably. However, such a 
course of action is only permissible in order to give effect 
to the clear and obvious intention of the legislature or to 
avoid absurdity, unreasonableness or redundancy. In 
every eventuality ‘or’ cannot necessarily be read as ‘and’ 
or vice versa, nor is there a prohibition on the legislature 
or the framers of the Constitution to employ ‘or’ in its 
common parlance i.e. “disjunctively”.  
16.  
In order to persuade us to read the word ‘or’ in 
Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, it was necessary for 
the learned counsel to exhibit that such an interpretation 
would be in consonance with the clear and obvious 
intention of the framers of the Constitution and to 
construe it disjunctively would result in an absurdity, 
unreasonableness or redundancy. The learned counsel 
could not demonstrate that the intention of the 
legislature by enacting the aforesaid Article would be 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
15
effectuated by construing the word ‘or’ therein as ‘and’. In 
fact, no serious effort, in this behalf, was made. An 
interpretation of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution as 
well as the relevant provisions of the Elections Act, 2017, 
read along with the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, in 
fact, leads to an obvious conclusion to the contrary.  
17.  
A person to be eligible to be elected or chosen 
as a Member of Parliament is required to be a citizen of 
Pakistan as is obvious from the provisions of Article 
62(1)(a) of the Constitution.  
18.  
The lack of qualification, in this behalf, is set 
forth under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, and an 
interpretation 
thereof 
is 
perhaps 
necessary 
for 
adjudication of the lis at hand. Article 63(1)(c) of the 
Constitution, reads as under: 
 
“63(1)(c) 
he ceases to be a citizen of 
Pakistan, or acquires the citizenship of 
a foreign State; or” 
 
19.  
Before proceeding further, it may be noted that 
a “citizen” has been defined under Article 260(1) of the 
Constitution in the following terms: 
 
 
“260. (1) ……………………………………..  
 
“citizen” means a citizen of Pakistan as 
defined by law;” 
 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
16
20.  
The mode of acquiring or loss of citizenship has 
not been set forth in detail in the Constitution of the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The law to which 
Article 260(1) of the Constitution reproduced herein 
above is referring to is the Pakistan Citizenship Act of 
1951. 
21.  
An overview of the said Act, 1951, as amended 
from time to time reveals that as a general principle, dual 
citizenship or nationality is not permitted. Reference, in 
this behalf, may be made to Section 14(1) of the Act of 
1951, which reads as follows: 
 
“14. Dual citizenship or nationality not 
permitted.—(1) Subject to the provisions of 
this section if any person is a citizen of 
Pakistan under the provisions of this Act, 
and is at the same time a citizen or 
national of any other country, he shall, 
unless 
[…] 
he 
makes 
a 
declaration 
according to the laws of that other country 
renouncing 
his 
status 
as 
citizen 
or 
national whereof, cease to be a citizen of 
Pakistan.”   
 
A plain reading of the aforesaid makes it clear and 
obvious that a Pakistani citizen who is incidentally a 
citizen or national of another State must make a choice 
and as a general rule cannot be a citizen of both 
countries. Until and unless he severs his relationship of 
nationality and/or citizenship with the foreign State in 
terms of laws of such State, he will cease to be a citizen 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
17
of Pakistan. Section 14(1) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 
as originally framed in 1951, envisaged a grace period of 
one year from coming into force of the Act for citizen of 
Pakistan and another State to make up his mind. This 
obviously catered for the situation that a large number of 
people who by birth or migration were entitled to be the 
citizen of both Pakistan and India. It is, in this context, 
that the grace period appears to have been granted. 
However, the general principle that a Pakistani citizen 
cannot also a citizen of another State was without 
exception the law of the land till 1972, when by way of an 
amendment, sub-section (3) of the Act of 1951, was 
added to Section 14, which reads as follows: 
 
“14(3) 
Nothing 
in 
sub-section 
(1) 
shall apply, or shall be deemed ever to 
have applied at any stage, to a person 
who being or having at any time been, a 
citizen of Pakistan, is also the citizen of 
the United Kingdom and Colonies or of 
such other country as the Federal 
Government may, by notification in the 
official Gazette, specify in this behalf.” 
 
22.  
Various notifications have been issued under 
Section 14(3) of the Act of 1951, to extend the privilege of 
dual nationality to persons acquiring citizenship of, inter 
alia, United States of America and Canada in addition to 
the 
United 
Kingdom 
countries 
relevant 
for 
the 
adjudication of the lis at hand. 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
18
23.  
Currently, a person can be a citizen of Pakistan 
as well as a citizen of, inter alia, United Kingdom, United 
States of America and Canada without ceasing to be a 
citizen of Pakistan. It is in the above context, that the 
provisions of Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, must 
necessarily be interpreted. Where a citizen of Pakistan 
acquires the nationality of or is also a citizen of another 
country other than a country covered by the provisions of 
Section 14(3) of the Act of 1951, or the Notifications 
issued thereunder, permitting dual nationality, referred 
to above, he automatically ceases to be a citizen of 
Pakistan, and therefore, cannot be elected or chosen as a 
Member of Parliament or hold such Office in view of the 
Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution in as much as it states 
“ceases to be citizen”. In fact, he is not qualified in terms 
of Article 62(1)(a) of the Constitution. If the contentions of 
the learned counsel are to be accepted with regard to a 
person, would come within the mischief of Article 63(1)(c) 
of the Constitution, only if he looses his Pakistani 
citizenship 
on 
account 
of 
acquiring 
citizenship/ 
nationality of another State than the latter portion of the 
Article would become redundant and the intention of the 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
19
framers of the Constitution would be frustrated rather 
than actualized.  
24.  
The upshot of the above is that it was clear 
intention of the framers of the Constitution that the word 
‘or’ has been used disjunctively in order to cater for a 
separate distinct situation, where a Pakistani citizen 
acquires a dual nationality of a foreign State as 
mentioned or notified under Section 14(3) of the Act of 
1951, without loss of his Pakistani citizenship in terms of 
Section 14(1) of the said Act. An interpretation to the 
contrary 
would 
render 
the 
phrase 
“acquires 
the 
citizenship of a foreign State” under Article 63(1)(c) of the 
Constitution redundant, which intention can never be 
attributed to the framers of the Constitution, as is the 
settled law, in this behalf. Reference, in this behalf, may 
be made to the judgments of this Court reported as Malik 
Shakeel Awan v. Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed and 21 others 
(PLD 2018 SC 643), Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and 
others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law 
and Justice, Islamabad and others (PLD 2018 SC 538), 
Sami 
Ullah 
Baloch 
and 
others 
v. 
Abdul 
Karim 
Nousherwani and others (PLD 2018 SC 405), Muhammad 
Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan Niazi and others (PLD 2018 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
20
SC 
189), 
District 
Bar Association, 
Rawalpindi v. 
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 SC 401), Application by 
Abdul Rehman Farooq Pirzada (PLD 2013 SC 829), Chief 
Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. 
President of Pakistan through Secretary and others (PLD 
2010 SC 61) and Shahid Nabi Malik and another v. Chief 
Election Commissioner, Islamabad and 7 others (PLD 
1997 SC 32). 
25.  
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, M/o Law, Islamabad and 
others (PLD 2013 SC 413) and Sadiq Ali Memon v. 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
21
Returning Officer, NA-237, Thatta-I and others (2013 
SCMR 1246).  
26.  
The contentions of Mr. Bilal Hassan Minto, 
learned ASC, amicus curiae, must necessarily be 
examined in the context that the word ‘or’ as used in 
Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution, has been employed 
disjunctively with the effect that lack of qualification(s) 
under the said provision caters for two separate legal 
situations. Firstly, where a person who once being a 
citizen of Pakistan ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan (say 
under Section 14 of the Act of 1951), or secondly 
acquires the citizenship of a foreign State [as is 
permissible under Section 14(3) of the Act of 1951]. The 
later disqualification i.e. acquiring citizenship of a foreign 
State needs to be interpreted on stand alone basis as a 
separate category of disqualification. In the above 
context, Mr. Bilal Hassan Minto, learned ASC, amicus 
curiae, perhaps, correctly canvassed that such a 
disqualification is triggered by acquiring of the citizenship 
of a foreign State. We noticed that the term “acquire” has 
not been defined in the Constitution. Thus, we must 
search for its ordinary dictionary meanings. In “Words 
and Phrases, Permanent Edition, West Publishing Co. 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
22
Volume 1A, at page 556-557”, the words “acquire” and 
“acquired” have been defined as under:  
“ACQUIRE; ACQUIRED 
In General: To “acquire” means to gain, 
usually by one’s own exertion; to get, as 
one’s own, as to acquire a title, riches, 
knowledge, skill, good or bad habits. U.S. 
v. Hibernia Bank Bldg., D.C.La., 76 
F.Supp. 18, 19.”  
 
In Black’s 
Law 
Dictionary, Fifth 
Edition 
by 
the 
Publisher’s Editorial Staff, at page 23, stated as under: 
“To gain by any means, usually by one's 
own exertions; to get as one's own; to 
obtain by search, endeavour, investment, 
practice, or purchase; receive or gain in 
whatever manner; come to have. In law of 
contracts and of descents, to become 
owner of property; to make property one's 
own.” 
 
In Legal Terms & Phrases, Judicially defined from 1947 - 
2012, by M. Ilyas Khan, 2013 Edition at page 38, the 
word “Acquire”, has been defined, while referring the 
judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Shabbir Ahmed, 
Judge, Lahore High Court, in the judgment reported as 
M. Aslam v. Umar Bibi (PLD 1960 Lahore 312) in the 
following words: 
 
“Acquire. - “To obtain or gain usually by 
one’s own efforts.”  
 
The phrase “acquires the citizenship of a foreign State” 
when examined in the context of the aforesaid definitions 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
23
of the word “acquire”, leads to an irresistible conclusion 
that a person is not qualified, if he, obtains or gains the 
citizenship of a foreign State. The lack of qualification is 
the consequence of gaining, obtaining or acquiring a legal 
status i.e. citizenship of a foreign State. As long as such 
legal status i.e. citizenship of a foreign State holds the 
field the disability resulting therefrom i.e. lack of 
qualification to be elected or chosen or being a Member of 
Parliament would also exist. If such disabling legal status 
disappears so too will the disability. This is the only 
conclusion which can be drawn from a plain reading of 
the aforesaid provision.  
 
In this view of the matter, where a citizen of 
Pakistan acquires the citizenship of a foreign State, he 
shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen or being a 
Member of Parliament until and unless such legal status 
i.e. being a citizen of a foreign State is obliterated or 
extinguished. This is only possible when the citizenship 
of the foreign State is renounced or relinquished and 
such process of relinquishment or renouncement is 
completed and concluded. Mere initiation of the process 
of relinquishment is not sufficient as during the course of 
such process, the dual national does not cease to be a 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
24
citizen of a foreign State and the disqualification exists. 
This view has already been taken by this Court in the 
judgments reported as Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi v. 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and others 
(PLD 2012 SC 1054), Dr. Ahmed Ali Shah and others v. 
Syed Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi and others (2018 SCMR 
1276), Zahid Iqbal v. Hafiz Muhammad Adnan and others 
(2016 SCMR 430) and Sadiq Ali Memon v. Returning 
Officer, NA-237, Thatta-I and others (2013 SCMR 1246), 
we have not been persuaded to take a different view in 
the matter. 
27.  
Adverting now to the matter of the newly 
elected Senators at hand. With reference to Ch. 
Muhammad Sarwar, no doubt, he was once the citizen of 
United Kingdom and thereafter, he has purportedly 
relinquished/renounced such citizenship well before the 
Senate 
elections 
in 
question. 
In 
support 
of 
his 
contentions, 
he 
filed 
a 
copy 
of 
“Declaration 
of 
Renunciation of British Citizenship, British Overseas 
Citizenship, British Overseas Territories Citizenship, 
British National (Overseas) or British Subject Status” 
dated 02.07.2013, along with a letter from the Home 
Office, UK Border Agency, dated 18.07.2013, which 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
25
confirmed the renunciation of his British Citizenship 
(available at pages 5 and 6 of CMA No.8575 of 2018). A 
Certificate dated 09.03.2018 from the British High 
Commission, 
Islamabad, 
confirming 
that 
he 
had 
renounced his citizenship in July, 2013, has also been 
filed on his behalf.  
28.  
The aforesaid documents, ex facie, established 
that Ch. Muhammad Sarwar, did not hold dual 
nationality when he contested the elections to the Senate. 
However, the said documents need to be authenticated 
and verified. 
29.  
On behalf of Ms. Nuzhat Sadiq, it has been 
submitted that she was a citizen of United States of 
America and renounced her nationality in the year 2012. 
In support of her contentions, she filed a copy of 
Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States 
dated 09.02.2012, which was approved by the Overseas 
Citizens Services Department of State on 23.03.2012. The 
aforesaid documents, ex facie, established that Ms. 
Nuzhat Sadiq, was not a dual national when she 
contested the elections to the Senate. However, the said 
documents need to be verified.  
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
26
30.  
With regard to Mr. Haroon Akhtar Khan, as 
noted above, he admittedly is a Canadian citizen, having 
acquired Canadian citizenship in the year 1980, as 
mentioned 
in 
his 
Affidavit 
and 
the 
process 
for 
renunciation of such citizenship has been initiated by 
him. However, it was candidly conceded by his learned 
counsel that such process has not been completed, 
hence, Mr. Haroon Akhtar Khan, continues to be a 
Canadian citizen. In this view of the matter, Mr. Haroon 
Akhtar Khan, in view of Article 63(1)(c) of the 
Constitution was not qualified to be elected or chosen as 
a Member of Senate or to hold the Office of Senate, under 
the Constitution.  
31.  
Adverting now to the matter of Ms. Saadia 
Abbasi, it is an admitted fact that she had a dual 
nationality of United States of America. It is her case that 
she had renounced and surrendered such nationality. In 
support of her contention, she has filed a copy of the 
Statement 
of 
Understanding 
Concerning 
the 
Consequences and Ramifications of Renunciation or 
Relinquishment 
of 
U.S. 
Nationality, 
attested 
on 
08.02.2018, in the Consul of the United States of 
America; a copy of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality of 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
27
the United States dated 13.02.2018, approved on 
20.02.2018; and also a copy of Oath/Affirmation of 
Renunciation of Nationality of United States dated 
08.02.2018. 
32.  
That by way of the Elections Act, 2017, inter 
alia, the Representation of the People Act, 1976, as well 
as the Senate (Election) Act, 1975, have been repealed, 
consolidated and re-enacted.  
In Halsbury’s Laws of England (Second Edition), Volume 
31 at page 565, para 771, it is observed as under: 
“771. … Where a consolidating statute re-
enacts 
sections that have come into 
existence at different previous dates, the 
statute must be construed on the same 
principles 
as 
one 
which 
enacts 
the 
provisions in question for the first time. …” 
 
Thus, provisions of the Elections Act, 2017, must 
necessarily be construed as they were previously 
interpreted. Sections 107, 110, 112 and 156(1)(b) of the 
Elections Act, 2017, in fact, are reenactment of Sections 
10, 11, 13 and 49(1)(b) of the Senate (Election) Act, 1975, 
and legally identical to Sections 11, 12, 14 and 68(1)(b) of 
the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The latter 
provisions have been interpreted by this Court by holding 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
28
that a person must be qualified and not disqualified on 
the last date of filing of the Nomination Papers.  
This Court, in the case reported as Waqas Akram v. Dr. 
Muhammad Tahirul Qadri and others (2003 SCMR 145), 
held as follows: 
“6. … the qualifying age has to be 
determined on the last date for filing of 
nomination 
papers, 
notified 
by 
the 
Election Commission of Pakistan. In other 
words the cut-off date is the last date for 
filing of nomination papers.” 
 
And in the case reported as Atique Rehman v. Haji Khan 
Afzal and others (2007 SC M R  507), it was held that: 
“… so long the decree of the Civil Court 
determining the age of appellant above 25 
years on the date of filing of nomination 
papers was intact, the objection that he 
was less than 25 years of age on the date 
of filing of nomination papers could not be 
raised to contend that he was suffering 
from 
disqualification 
to 
contest 
the 
election. …” 
And in the case reported as Zahid Iqbal v. Hafiz 
Muhammad Adnan and others (2016 SCMR 430), it was 
observed as under: 
“11. … Disqualification on account of 
dual citizenship … is not attracted in 
instant 
case 
as 
on 
the 
date 
of 
nomination papers, the petitioner was 
admittedly 
not 
holding 
any 
dual 
citizenship. …”  
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
29
 
Even otherwise, a plain reading of Sections 107, 110, 112 
and 156(1)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017, would reveal 
that the accumulated effect is that the critical date for 
being qualified or not being  qualified to be a Member of 
Parliament is the date when the Nomination Papers are 
filed. 
33.   
The elections of the Senate were held under 
Chapter VII of the Elections Act, 2017, and as per 
Notification dated 02.02.2018, the schedule of Senate 
elections was issued by the ECP, with regard to Senate 
elections from the Provincial Assembly, Punjab, and in 
terms whereof, notice for invitation of Nomination Papers 
was issued on 03.02.2018. The last date for filing of the 
Nomination Papers was 08.02.2018 and the date of 
scrutiny was fixed as 12.02.2018. The appeals, if any, 
filed were required to be disposed of as on 17.02.2018. 
The last date of withdrawal was 19.02.2018.  
34.  
Obviously, 
Ms. 
Saadia 
Abbasi, 
filed 
her 
Nomination Papers by or before 08.02.2018 and on that 
date, even as per her own case, at that point of time,  she 
was a dual national and the alleged relinquishment still 
under process, leaving no room for doubt that on such 
dates, at such point of time, even as per her own case, 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
30
the renunciation of dual citizenship had not been 
approved. Hence, she was not qualified to be elected or 
chosen as a Member of Senate and her Nomination 
Papers were invalid, liable to be rejected and any election 
thereupon void. The subsequent approval of her 
renunciation even with retrospective effect could not cure 
the defect of not being qualified in terms of Section 103 of 
the Elections Act, 2017, which existed at that point of 
time, when she filed her Nomination Papers, on the last 
date of Nomination Papers and when her Nomination 
Papers were scrutinized. In this view of matter, her 
election to the Senate is vitiated and liable to be 
annulled, as she was not qualified at the relevant point of 
time. 
35.  
The aforesaid are the detailed reasons of our 
short Oder of event date, which reads as follows: 
 
“As regards Ch. Muhammad Sawar, 
vide order dated 10.10.2018 we have 
required 
the 
verification 
and 
confirmation of certain documents and 
granted a period of six weeks for doing 
the needful. Such verification has not so 
far been received. Resultantly, let the 
case be listed for hearing before a 
regular Bench after a period of six 
weeks.  
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
31
 
2. 
The learned counsel appearing for 
Mrs. Nuzhat Sadiq has brought on the 
record her certificate of relinquishment 
of 
nationality/citizenship 
dated 
23.3.2012 which needs verification with 
regards to its genuineness. Therefore, 
the said document be sent to the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs for verifying 
the authenticity thereof from the US 
Embassy in Pakistan and also from the 
State Department of US. Relist for 
hearing before a regular Bench after six 
weeks. 
 
3. 
As far as Mr. Haroon Akhtar and 
Mrs. Saadia Abbasi are concerned, for 
the reasons to be recorded later, we hold 
and declare that on account of having 
dual nationality on the relevant dates, 
they 
were 
disqualified 
under 
the 
provisions of Article 63(1)(c) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, therefore, upon the 
announcement of this order they have 
effectively ceased to be the Members of 
the Senate and accordingly are directed 
to 
be 
denotified 
by 
the 
Election 
Commission of Pakistan, which shall 
take steps for the purposes of re-election 
on those seats within the time provided 
by the law. 
SMC No.8/2018, etc. 
32
 
4. 
As far as the case of Mr. Shahzad 
Ali Khan is concerned, it has been 
informed that he has lost the elections, 
therefore, C.M.A.No.649-L/2018 stands 
disposed 
of 
as 
having 
become 
infructuous.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the  
 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
17th October, 2018 
‘APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
Mahtab H. Sheikh