IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
PRESENT: 
  
 
 
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja  
  
 
 
Mr. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany 
  
 
 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 1646-L OF 2014 
 
 
Gohar Nawaz Sindhu 
 
 
 
 
 
Petitioner 
Versus 
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif & others 
 
 
Respondents 
 
Petitioner: 
 
 
In person 
 
On Court’s notice: 
 
Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, AGP 
  
 
 
 
Mr. Waqar Rana, Addl. AGP assisted by  
  
 
 
 
Mr. Dilnawaz Ahmed Cheema, Consultant to AGP 
 
Respondents: 
 
 
Not represented 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
10.11.2014 
 
  
 
 
 
O R D E R 
Jawwad S. Khawaja, J. This case raises questions of constitutional law that are of 
great significance to the continuity and health of our nation’s system of elections, 
governance and adherence to the will of the people as expressed by them in the body of the 
Constitution itself.  
2. 
This petition arises out of Writ Petition No. 23456 of 2014 which was filed by the 
petitioner, Mr. Gohar Nawaz Sindhu. He is an Advocate and is also the Sr. Vice President 
of Insaaf Lawyers’ Forum which is the Lawyers Wing of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI). 
He has appeared and argued this petition in person. The respondents are the Prime 
Minister of Pakistan Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Interior Minister Ch. Nisar Ahmed 
and the Secretary Defence, Government of Pakistan. 
3. 
The High Court dismissed the petitioner’s Writ Petition vide judgment dated 
2.9.2014. The learned Single Bench did not touch upon the merits of the petition but 
dismissed it as being not maintainable. Reliance was placed by the learned single Bench on 
the case titled Hudabiya Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. National Accountability Bureau (PLD 2012 Lah. 
515). It was held that the issue raised by the petitioner was a “political question” and was not 
CP 1646-L/2014 
2
justiciable. It was also held that the petitioner “can agitate this matter before an appropriate 
political forum, if so advised.” 
4. 
Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed ICA No. 865/2014. This appeal was heard by a 
learned Division Bench and was dismissed through judgment dated 8.9.2014. Though this 
judgment has made reference to Articles 62(1)(f), 63(1)(g), 66 and 69 of the Constitution, it 
proceeds on the same grounds as the judgment of the learned Single Judge i.e. failure of the 
petitioner to satisfy the Court on the question of maintainability and on the question of his 
locus standi. On 16.10.2014 after hearing the petitioner at some length we had issued notice 
to the learned Attorney General under Order XXVIIA CPC. A concise statement has been 
filed by the learned Attorney General.  
5. 
After hearing the petitioner and the learned Attorney General and having 
considered the concise statement filed by him pursuant to our order, we are prima facie of 
the view that the following constitutional questions arise in this case:- 
(i) 
Whether in view of the express stipulations in Articles 62(1)(f) and 
63(1)(g) of the Constitution requiring declaration/conviction by a court, 
the High Court could have dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground 
that it raised a “political question” and was, therefore, not justiciable;  
(ii) 
If it is held that the High Court fell in error and that the Writ Petition 
was maintainable, what would be the effect of the constitutional 
requirement that declaration/conviction as aforesaid has to be by a 
court and for the purpose of such declaration/conviction whether the 
provisions of Article 10A of the Constitution requiring “fair trial” and 
“due process” are attracted; and if so, what do these terms entail;  
(iii) 
It may well be that the facts and circumstances emerging on record may 
prima facie, not justify the acceptance of the Writ Petition, but it is in our 
view still essential to lay down the law and parameters of the 
constitutional provisions and to outline on principle, what would be the 
minimum threshold for attracting the above referred provisions of the 
Constitution. In any event it is important to determine:- 
CP 1646-L/2014 
3
(a) as to which Court will be competent to make such declaration or to 
pass an order convicting a member of Parliament; 
(b) What will be the procedure adopted by such Court for rendering 
such declaration/conviction; 
(c) What will be the standard of proof required for making such 
declaration or order of conviction; 
(d) As to who will have locus standi to seek such declaration/conviction; 
(iv) 
The constitutional provisions of eligibility for elected office requiring an 
elected persons to be “honest” and “ameen” have to be given meaning 
because these terms have to be interpreted as they constitute a 
substantive part of the Constitution; and it is the people of Pakistan 
who have (through the Constitution) mandated and are entitled to 
ensure that members of Parliament  elected by them are inter alia, 
“honest” and “ameen” and thus fulfill the eligibility criteria and 
qualifications given in Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. 
(v) 
Whether Article 66 (privileges of members etc.) of the Constitution 
provides an absolute or a qualified privilege to members of Parliament 
for statements made on the floor of the two houses of Parliament and 
Provincial Assemblies and also whether the provisions of Articles 62 
and 63 of the Constitution override the provisions of Article 66 ibid.      
(vi) 
What is the effect of the material changes which have been made in 
Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution by virtue of the 18th amendment 
passed in April, 2010. 
6. 
It is of utmost importance that the foregoing constitutional questions are 
adjudicated because the same challenges as to qualifications/disqualifications, eligibility of 
elected members of Parliament and also elections and bye-elections are a recurring 
phenomenon and for the same reason it is necessary that courts, returning officers and 
election tribunals etc. receive guidelines by way of precedent in terms of Article 189 of the 
Constitution; otherwise, without such guidance there is likelihood that there will be a lack 
of certainty and uniformity in the decisions rendered by various courts, returning officers 
CP 1646-L/2014 
4
and election tribunals etc. bearing in mind that there are a total of 1070 constituencies and 
an average of 10 candidates will be contesting elections and will be submitting their 
nomination papers for scrutiny.  
7. 
Since the aforesaid important constitutional questions have arisen and the same are 
likely to have far reaching consequences and we have also been informed that some of the 
questions noted above are already under consideration by another learned Bench of this 
Court, we may suggest that senior Advocates of the Bar (Mr. Hamid Khan, Mr. Raza 
Rabbani, and Mr. Khawaja Haris) assist the Court as amicus curiae. The Office is directed to 
place the file before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for further orders deemed appropriate by him 
including, if deemed fit by him, the constitution of a larger Bench.  
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
Quetta, the 
10th November, 2014 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
M Azhar Malik*/ 
 
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING.