PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has declared that Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) lacks lawful authority to assume jurisdiction over acts allegedly committed by election officials performing duties under supervision of Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) in general polls.
“The proceedings so initiated are therefore (by ACE) without jurisdiction, coram non judice, and of no legal effect,” rules a bench in its detailed judgement over a petition that challenged an inquiry started by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ACE into alleged irregularities in last year’s general elections and summoning of several presiding officers of polling stations in that regard.
The bench consisting of Justice Sahibzada Asadullah and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal had accepted a joint petition filed by five of the presiding officers of respective polling stations of a provincial assembly constituency, PK-79 Peshawar, challenging the inquiry and issuance of notices to them by ACE on Aug 29 for appearance.
Barrister M Yaseen Raza Khan appeared for the petitioners, including a lecturer at a local college Ms Saima and four others, and requested the court to set aside and quash the impugned inquiry and notices issued to them as the same were illegal and unconstitutional.
ECP competent forum to deal with ‘corrupt practices’ of officials, declares bench
The petitioners were presiding officers in PK-79 Peshawar wherein former provincial minister Taimur Saleem Khan Jhagra was a contesting candidate, who claimed that he had won the said seat keeping in view Form-45 results, but the returning officer had declared his rival Jalal Khan as MPA on basis of tampered documents.
While an election petition filed by Mr Jhagra has still been pending before an election tribunal, he also filed a complaint with ACE regarding alleged tampering with documents by presiding officers.
“Admittedly, the petitioners were performing duties as election officials under the supervision of Election Commission of Pakistan. The foremost question, therefore, is whether, at the relevant time, he was functioning as a public servant or an officer within the contemplation of law,” the bench observed.
It ruled: “Upon examination of the scheme of Election Act, 2017, it is manifested that the said enactment itself prescribes the procedure and provides for penalties in respect of acts constituting corruption and corrupt practices, not only by contesting candidates but also by officers and officials engaged in the conduct of elections.”
“When the statute has thus created a complete and self-contained mechanism for inquiry, trial and punishment, the jurisdiction of all other fora, by necessary implication stands excluded,” the bench ruled.
The bench maintained: “The contention that Anti-Corruption Establishment is vested with jurisdiction on the premise that the petitioners were public servants is misconceived. Once it is established that the alleged acts were committed in connection with the conduct of elections and in discharge of duties assigned under Election Act, 2017, the only competent authorities to deal with such matters would be Election Commission of Pakistan and, thereafter, election tribunal constituted thereunder.”
In its 32-page detailed judgement, the bench discussed relevant provisions of Elections Act, 2017, Constitution of Pakistan and judgements of superior courts.
“Upon scrutiny of the record, it becomes evident that the allegations raised before both forums (election tribunal and ACE) are identical in substance and character. Before election tribunal, the respondent seeks to establish, through evidence that the petitioners engaged in acts of corruption and corrupt practices with the object of having his election declared null and void,” the bench observed.
It pointed out: “Simultaneously, before Anti-Corruption Establishment, the respondents seek to substantiate the very allegations of corruption and corrupt practices, albeit through a different procedural mechanism, with the ultimate aim of using such findings to challenge the validity of the petitioners’ election. This court finds it rather perplexing that parallel proceedings are being pursued on identical allegations before two different forums.”
The bench holds that “where offences are committed under the relevant chapter of Elections Act, whether by public officials or members of general public, the legislature has provided a comprehensive mechanism and procedure for their prosecution; for general election offences, the applicable provision is Section 190; for offences committed by public officers or election officials, the mechanism is specifically provided under Section 191.”
“Thus, when the Act itself provides distinct and complete procedural mechanisms for both categories of offenders, the assumption of jurisdiction by Anti-Corruption Establishment becomes untenable.”
“The legislative intent is clear; matters arising out of misconduct or offences committed during the election process are to be dealt with exclusively within the statutory framework of Elections Act, 2017, under the supervision and control of Election Commission of Pakistan,” the court ruled.
The bench maintained: “In our considered view, upon a holistic examination of relevant provisions of Elections Act, 2017, no ambiguity remains that the allegations levelled against the petitioners pertain exclusively to their conduct while acting under the authority and supervision of Election Commission of Pakistan. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the jurisdiction of Anti-Corruption Establishment stands impliedly excluded.”
Published in Dawn, November 12th, 2025