Authored by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, a detailed judgement on petition filed by Nawabzada Iftikhar Ahmed vs Election Commission said that "the Parliament of any country is one of its noblest, honourable and important institutions making not only the policies and the laws for the nation but in fact shaping and carving its very destiny."
"And here is a man who being constitutionally and legally debarred from being its member, managed to sneak into it by making a false statement on oath and by using bogus, fake and forged documents polluting the purity of this pious body. His said conduct demonstrates not only his callous contempt for the basic norms of honesty, integrity and even for his own oath but also undermines the sanctity, the dignity and the majesty of the said august House."
It further said that it is incumbent upon the Election Commission, in discharge of its constitutional obligations to guard against corrupt practices, to launch prosecution of persons who stood accused of the same commission. Needless to say that punishment and consequent disqualification of such-like persons would not be act undermining the dignity and the majesty of the Houses of Legislature but an act in aid of enhancing the same.
The Election Commission is, therefore, directed to initiate action against all such persons who are accused of commission of corrupt practices; of committing forgery and of using, as genuine, documents which they knew or at least had reason to believe to be forged, said the order. The Election Commission shall ensure that the investigations in these matters are conducted honestly, efficiently and expeditiously and shall depute one of its senior officers to supervise the same.
The learned Sessions Judges to whom these trials shall then be entrusted, are also directed to conclude the same without any delay, in consonance with the spirit of the Elections laws as displayed, inter-alia, by the Provisions newly added to sub-section (1-A) of section 67 of the said Act of 1976 through Amending Act No IV of 2009 promulgated on 2.11.2009. In any case, it should not take each learned Sessions Judge who gets seized of the matter, more than three months to conclude the same.
And before we part with this matter, we may add that no criminal could ever be heard, in any civilised society, to avoid punishment on the ground that some others, similarly placed, had, on some earlier occasions escaped punishment. Like-wise, no individual except the ones constitutionally and legally authorised for the purpose, could be allowed in a civilised society to declare which law of the land was good and which one was a bad law and then feel authorised to defeat the same through unlawful and even criminal acts. Such-like attempts, if not nipped in the bud, could lead the society into the dark depths of destruction, it added.
Every law of the land, so long as its exists on the statute books, has to be respected and must be followed. The same should also serve as an answer to some reservations expressed about disqualification of a person from becoming a Member of a legislative institution if he did not practice the obligatory duties. Suffice it, however, to add that identifying persons who could or could not become members of Legislative institutions was a policy matter but so long as such-like disqualification's were not omitted from the Constitution or the law, the Court were bound to honour and enforce the same and not so doing could amount to a grave dereliction of duty.
The judgement also cited provisions of the constitution dealing with qualification/disqualification for the parliamentarians and said that "...Article 62 and 63 of the Constitution and section 99 of the Representation of People Act of 1976 had declared that, amongst others, the persons who were not of good character; who indulged in commission of major sins; who were not honest; who were removed, dismissed or compulsorily retired from service of Pakistan; who had obtained loans from banks and had not re-paid the same or who had indulged in corrupt practices during the course of elections, would not be allowed to pollute the clearness of these legislative institutions."
The court also dismissed the petition of Muhammad Rizwan Gill, member Provincial assembly from PP-34 Sargodha VII, with cost and said that the election is declared to be null and void with the result that seat of the Provincial Assembly PP 34 Sargodha VII has fallen vacant to be filled in through fresh election by the Election Commission of Pakistan in accordance with law.
A rival candidate, Nadia Aziz, the respondent, questioned the said election essentially on the ground that Rizwan, the appellant, did not hold a valid and a genuine BA degree and was thus not qualified to be a Member of the Punjab Assembly in terms of section 99(cc) of the Representation of People's Act of 1976 (hereinafter called the said Act).
While appearing before the Tribunal as Rizwan had deposed that he had taken his "BA examination in 2001 and the result was declared in April, 2002." The degree in question of the University of Punjab, however, narrates that Muhammad Rizwan who had been awarded the said degree of Bachelor of Arts, had appeared "at the examination held in April, 2002".
"After the examination of record the court had noted that as per his admission form, Rizwan was a permanent resident of Sargodha where his address was 89-A, Satellite Town. The Examination Center where he had desired to take the said examination, as per column-12 of the admission form, was Government College, Bhakkar. No explanation could be offered to us as to why a resident of a city of Sargodha where a number of examination centers were available, would opt to travel all the way to Bhakkar to take the said examination.
In addition, signatures of the appellant as appearing on his said admission form (Mark 'A') have no resemblance whatsoever either with his signatures appearing on his ID Card or even with his signatures appearing on his power of attorney filed in this Court.
During the proceedings when questioned by the court about the subject, Rizwan came to the podium and wished to be heard in person. The judgement said, "taking advantage of his said desire and of his presence, we asked him as to what did 'IPS' [his subject in the exams in which he claimed to have secured 72% marks] stand for and what was this subject about? A long silence was the appellant's answer. Upon our insistence and after a deep thought, the appellant's reply was: 'Health and Physical Education'..."