LAHORE: An election tribunal has upheld its power to reject a petition over procedural defects even after notices were issued to the respondents.

The tribunal comprising Lahore High Court’s (LHC) Justice Anwaar Hussain issued the ruling on a petition filed by a PTI-backed independent candidate, Malik Akram Bhatti, challenging the victory of PML-N MNA Nadeem Abbas from NA-135, Okara-I in the 2024 general elections.

Mr Abbas had won the election after securing 129,218 votes against 106,700 bagged by Mr Bhatti.

Mr Bhatti challenged the results, rejected by the tribunal due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and defective verification.

LHC’s Justice Anwaar says the term ‘decision’ covers both rejection and dismissal

His lawyer contested the move, arguing the tribunal had no authority to reject the petition after issuance of notices.

However, the tribunal dismissed the challenge.

Mr Bhatti’s counsel argued Section 145(1) of the Elections Act barred the tribunal from rejecting the petition for procedural defects after notices were issued to respondents and they submitted their replies. He also cited Election Rules, 2017, saying there was a fundamental distinction between “rejection” and “dismissal” of a petition.

A “dismissal” qualifies as a “decision” under the Election Act 2017, entitling a litigant to an appeal. However, a “rejection” does not bar re-filing and should not be treated as final.

The lawyers for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the winning candidate contended the petitioner’s arguments were “legally flawed”.

They maintained that under the law, the term “decision” covers both dismissal and rejection, thereby enabling the aggrieved party to file an appeal at another forum.

They further argued the petition was defective due to improper verification and lacked compliance with the procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Elections Act 2017.

Justice Hussain observed that such a restriction would undermine the judicial authority of the election tribunal to curb frivolous or non-maintainable litigation at an early stage.

Tribunal’s power

In his ruling, Justice Hussain maintained the term “decision” used in the law is broad and inclusive.

He said although the Elections Act didn’t explicitly define the term “decision”, judicial interpretation and dictionary meanings confirm it encompasses both rejections and dismissals.

Therefore, both are subject to appeal, as long as they are final in nature, the judge added.

The tribunal found “serious procedural deficiencies” in the petition, including essential certification by the oath commissioner.

The judge remarked the petitioner’s affidavit also failed to conform to the mandatory legal requirements and lacked confirmation of due administration of the oath.

The tribunal reiterated its power to reject unmeritorious or defective petitions even after notice, stating that such rejection constitutes a final decision that is appealable under the law.

Published in Dawn, June 1st, 2025