SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Advisory Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi

REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2020

[Reference by the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, under Article 186 of the Constitution of
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973]

For the Federation : Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan,

[in Reference No.1/2020] Attorney General for Pakistan
[in CMA.127-128, 170, Mr. Sohail Mehmood, Addl. Attorney General
989,1293/2021]
for Pakistan
Mr. Ayaz Shaukat, DAG
[Assisted by Ms. Maryum Rasheed, Advocate]

For the National Assembly : Mr. Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Sr. ASC
[in CMA.278/2021] Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq, Addl. Secretary
(Legislation)
Mr. Muhammad Waqar, DPO (Lit.)

For the Senate of Pakistan : Senator Muhammad Ali Khan Saif

[in CMA.296/2021] Mr. Muhammad Javed Iqbal, DD

For the Election Commission : Mr. Sikandar Sultan Raja, Chief Election
[in CMA.210, 808, 880, 983, Commissioner
1010/2021] Mr. Justice (R) Muhammad Iltaf Ibrahim
Qureshi, Member (Punjab)
Mrs. Justice (R) Irshad Qaiser, Member (KP)
Mr. Shah Mehmood Jatoi, Member
(Balochistan)
Mr. Nisar Ahmed Durrani, Member (Sindh)
Mr. Sajeel Shehryar Swati, ASC
Mr. Sana Ullah Zahid, ASC, L.A.
Dr. Akhtar Nazir, Secretary
Mr. Muhammad Arshad, DG (Law)

For Government of Punjab : Mr. Ahmed Awais, AG

[in CMA.95/2021] Barrister Qasim Ali Chohan, Addl.AG
Ms. Imrana Baloch, AOR

For Government of Sindh : Mr. Salman Talib ud Din, AG

[in CMA.386/2021] Mr. Sibtain Mahmud, Addl.AG
(via video link from Karachi)

For Government of KP : Mr. Shumail Ahmad Butt, AG

[in CMA.104/2021] Mr. Atif Ali Khan, Addl.AG
For Government of Balochistan : Mr. Arbab M. Tahir, AG
[in CMA.185/2021] Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Khan Swati, Addl.AG
Mr. Muhammad Fareed Dogar, AAG

For ICT : Mr. Niazullah Khan Niazi, AG

[in CMA.149/2021]

For JUI : Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Sr. ASC

[in CMA.129, 541/2021] Mr. Jehangir Khan Jadoon, ASC
 Reference No.1 of 2020 -2
-

For SHCBA : Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed, ASC

[in CMA.297, 1119/2021] Barrister Omer Soomro, ASC
Syed Riffaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
[Assisted by Ravi Pinjani, ASC]

[in CMA.130, 1201, 1292/2021] : Mr. Hassan Irfan Khan, ASC

For PPP : Mian Raza Rabbani, Sr. ASC

[in CMA.131, 704, 1217/2021] Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR

[in CMA.154,1295/2021] : Malik Qamar Afzal, ASC

For JI : Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmed Raja, ASC

[in CMA.211/2021]

[in CMA.231/2021] : Syed Iqbal Hashmi, ASC

For PML (N) : Barrister Zafar Ullah, ASC

[in CMA.784, 1231/2021]

For Pakistan Bar Council : Mr. Mansoor Usman Awan, ASC

[in CMA.807, 1200/2021]

For PPP (P) : Mr. Farooq H. Naek, Sr. ASC

[in CMA.872,1218/2021]

[in CMA.908, 1008, 1026-1030/2021] : Mr. Khurram Shehzad Chughtai, Advocate

High Court, in person

[in CMA.1115/2021] : Mr. Azhar Iqbal, ASC

[in CMA.1233/2021] : Mr. Waheed Ahmed Kamal, in person

Dates of Hearing : 04.01.2021, 11.01.2021, 13.01.2021, 14.01.2021,

02.02.2021, 03.02.2021, 04.02.2021, 08.02.2021,
10.02.2021, 11.02.2021, 15.02.2021, 16.02.2021,
17.02.2021, 18.02.2021, 19.02.2021, 22.02.2021,
23.02.2021, 24.02.2021; and 25.02.2021

OPINION

Gulzar Ahmed, CJ:- This Reference No.1 of 2020 under

Article 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,

1973, has been received from the President of Pakistan, in which

opinion of this Court has been sought on the following question: -

“Whether the condition of ‘secret ballot’ referred to in

Article 226 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, is applicable only for the elections held ‘under’
the Constitution such as the election to the office of
President of Pakistan, Speaker and Deputy Speaker of
National Assembly, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of
Senate, Speakers and Deputy Speakers of the Provincial
Assemblies and not to other elections such as the
election for the members of the Senate of Pakistan held
under the Elections Act, 2017, enacted pursuant to

2
 Reference No.1 of 2020 -3
-

Article 222 read with Entry 41, Part I, Fourth Schedule

to the Constitution, which may be held by way of secret
or open ballot, as may be provided for in the Elections
Act, 2017?”

2. Notices were issued to the Advocates General of all the Provinces

including the Islamabad Capital Territory. Notices were also issued to the

Speaker of the National Assembly, Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan and

Speakers of all the Provincial Assemblies i.e. Punjab, Sindh, Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, as well as the Election Commission of

Pakistan. Notice was also published in newspaper so that any other person,

who wishes to be heard in the matter, may do so.

3. Learned Attorney General for Pakistan has contended that

the specific question on which opinion has been sought by the

President of Pakistan is in respect of scope of Article 226 of the

Constitution, as it presently stands and whether reference to ‘election

under the Constitution’ made in this Article includes election for

Members of Senate to be conducted under the Elections Act, 2017. He

has made submissions regarding the maintainability and scope of

reference under Article 186 of the Constitution and in this respect has

relied upon opinion of a 12-Member Bench of this Court in Reference

No.2 of 2005 by the President of Pakistan (PLD 2005 SC 873) with

regard to Hisba Bill. He contended that once the President considers

that the question of law of public importance has arisen, Reference

under Article 186 of the Constitution could be sent and the Court will

consider the same and give its opinion. He also referred to the case of

Reference No.1 of 1973 reported as Special reference under Article 187

of the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by

President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (PLD 1973 SC 563), regarding adoption of

Resolution by the National Assembly for recognition of Bangladesh.

3
 Reference No.1 of 2020 -4
-

4. As regards the merit of the Reference, learned Attorney

General opened his arguments by giving the scheme of the

Constitution, where elections are to be conducted. He has contended

that Constitution has provided Bodies and Offices to be filled through

elections or appointments. He has referred to Article 41(3) read with

Clause 12 of the Second Schedule of the Constitution, which provide

for election of the President by secret ballot. He has referred to Articles

53 and 108 of the Constitution, which deals with the elections of the

Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the National and the Provincial

Assemblies, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Senate, held

under Article 60 of the Constitution by secret ballot. He has referred to

the elections of the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers, which are

conducted under Articles 91(3) and 130(3) of the Constitution. He has

contended that Bodies created under the Constitution are National

Assembly, Senate and Provincial Assemblies and their elections are

held under the Elections Act, 2017.

5. The learned Attorney General dealt with the question of

composition and the term of the National and the Provincial

Assemblies and mode of elections provided in the Constitution and

also the composition and term of Senate of Pakistan. He contended

that the election is primarily about the machinery provisions and it is

not merely about balloting, either secret or open. He contended that

balloting is one aspect in the process of holding of elections, which the

Court has construed broadly. He referred to Article 222 of the

Constitution and contended that by this Article, Parliament has been

given power to make laws for elections in the National Assembly,

Senate and the Provincial Assemblies. He has contended that pursuant

4
 Reference No.1 of 2020 -5
-

to this power, given to the Parliament, the Parliament has framed the

Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, the Delimitation of Constituencies Act, 1974,

the Senate (Election) Act, 1975 and the Representation of People Act,

1976. All the four above noted laws were repealed by the Parliament by

making a new consolidated Elections Act, 2017, which is a complete

code, providing for elections in the National Assembly, Provincial

Assemblies and the Senate.

6. Learned Attorney General referred to Article 225 of the

Constitution, which provides that no election to a House or a

Provincial Assembly shall be called in question except by an election

petition presented to such Tribunal and in such manner as may be

determined by the Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) and noted that

this Article only allows challenge to the elections of Senate, National

Assembly and Provincial Assemblies by an election petition under the

Elections Act, 2017. He contended that no such bar extends to

elections held under the Constitution, i.e. of the President, the Prime

Minister, the Chief Ministers, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of

National and Provincial Assemblies and the Chairman and Deputy

Chairman, Senate.

7. While dealing with Article 226 of the Constitution, learned

Attorney General referring to different terms or words used in different

provisions of the Constitution and submitted that though the Houses

are constituted by or under the Constitution, the elections to these

Houses are elections under the Elections Act, 2017, and not under the

Constitution and that the elections under Article 226 of the

Constitution is only restricted to the elections held under the

Constitution, that of the President, etc.

5
 Reference No.1 of 2020 -6
-

8. Learned Attorney General referred to the manner of holding

of elections of the President provided in the Constitution and

contended that if secret ballot was to be conducted for the elections in

Senate, the word secret could have been added in Article 59(2) of the

Constitution, which specifies the system of proportional representation

by means of single transferable vote for election in Senate, under the

Elections Act, 2017, but owing to the provision of Article 222 of the

Constitution, the Parliament would have required to provide for

election of Senate by secret ballot. He contended that in terms of

Section 81 of the Elections Act, 2017, elections of National and

Provincial Assemblies are provided to be held by secret ballot and this

law cannot be amended by changing it to open ballot and gave reasons

for it. He also referred to an order of this Court dated 15.04.2016

passed in Civil Appeals No.760 to 765 of 2016, in the case of Province

of Sindh Vs. Muttahida Qaumi Movement, where this Court has held

that elections of the Local Governments are outside the ambit of Article

226 of the Constitution.

9. The learned Attorney General emphasized about the

transparency and purity of elections for attainment of the

Constitutional objectives and contended that heavy responsibility lies

upon the Election Commission of Pakistan to ensure free, fair and

transparent elections. In support of his submissions, the learned

Attorney General has relied upon the cases of District Bar Association,

Rawalpindi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another (2015 PLD

401 SC), Miss Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan and another

(PLD1988 SC 416), Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of

Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473), Ishaq Khan Khakwani and

6
 Reference No.1 of 2020 -7
-

others v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others (PLD 2015 SC

275), People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another v. Union of India and

another (2013) 10 SCC 1), Shailesh Manubhai Parmar vs. Election

Commission of India through Chief Election Commissioner and others

(AIR 2018 SC 3918), Workers’ Party Pakistan through General Secretary

and 6 others v. Federation of Pakistan and 2 others (2013 PLD 406 SC),

Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others v. M.Q.M. through

Deputy Convener and others (PLD 2014 SC 531), Speaker, National

Assembly of Pakistan, Islamabad and others v. Habib Akram and others

& Sami Ullah Baloch and others v. Abdul Karim Nousherwani and

others (PLD 2018 SC 678 & 405), Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM)

through the leader of the opposition and others v. Province of Sindh

through Chief Secretary, Karachi and others (PLD 2017 Sindh 169),

Attaullah and another v. Government of Balochistan, Local Government

Rural Development and Agrovilles Department through Secretary and

another (PLD 2014 Balochistan 206), Workers’ Party Pakistan through

Akhtar Hussain, Advocate, General Secretary and 6 others v. Federation

of Pakistan and 2 others (PLD 2012 SC 681), Malik Ameer Haider

Sangha and another v. Mrs. Sumaira Malik and others (2018 SCMR

1166), Sally Textile Mills Limited and another v. Collector of Customs,

Customs House, Karachi (1991 SCMR 721), Begum B. H. Syed v. Mst.

Afzal Jahan Begum and another (PLD 1970 SC 29), Mehreen Zaibun

Nisa v. Land Commissioner, Multan and others (PLD 1975 SC 397),

Reference by the President of India under Article 143 (1) of the

Constitution of India on the implementation of the Indo-Pakistan

Agreement relating to Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves. (AIR

1960 SC 845), Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 2006 SC

7
 Reference No.1 of 2020 -8
-

3127), Lahore Development Authority through D.G. and others v. Ms.

Imrana Tiwana and others (SCMR 2015 SC 1739), In the matter of:

Reference No.2 of 2005 by the President of Pakistan (PLD 2005 SC 873),

Abid Hussain v. Mst. Afsar Jehan Begum and other (PLD 1973 SC 01),

Government of Punjab through Secretary, Home Department v. Zia Ullah

Khan and 2 others (SCMR 1992 602), The Commissioner of Income-

Tax/Wealth Tax v. Messrs Engineering Cooperative Housing Society,

Lahore (PTD 2000 3388), Dalco Engineering Private Ltd. V Shree Satish

Prabhakar Padhye & Ors. With Fancy Rehabilitation Trust & Anr. V.

Union of India & Ors. (AIR 2010 SC 1576), Messrs Mustafa Impex,

Karachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary

Finance, Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 SC 808), Election

Commission of Pakistan v. Asif Iqbal and others (PLD 1992 SC 342),

Mahmood Khan Achakzai and others v. Federation of Pakistan and

others (PLD 1997 SC 426), Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar

Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan through Secretary and

others (PLD 2010 SC 61), Government of Sindh through Secretary

Health Department and others v. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi and others (SCMR

2020 SC 01), Muhammad Akram Baloch v. Akbar Askani and others

(2014 CLC 878), Hakam Qureshi, President, District Bar Association,

Lahore and 2 others v. The Judges of the Lahore High Court through the

Registrar and another (PLD 1976 SC 713) and S. Raghbir Sindh Gill v.

S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and others (AIR 1980 SC 1362).

10. Mr. Ahmed Awais, learned Advocate General, Punjab,

adopted the arguments of the learned Attorney General. He

additionally contended that the election to the Senate is held pursuant

to the mandate given by the electorate and such mandate of the

8
 Reference No.1 of 2020 -9
-

electorate cannot be stolen by indiscipline on the part of the elected

representatives. He contended that the elections to the Senate are

marred by corruption and corrupt practices and Article 59 of the

Constitution does not speak of secret ballot for election to the seat of

Senate.

11. Mr. Arbab Muhammad Tahir, learned Advocate General

Balochistan also adopted the arguments of the learned Attorney

General and referred to Quranic verse on corruption and Article 21 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He contended that the

Election Commission of Pakistan is empowered to make pre-pole and

post-pole arrangements to ensure corruption free elections, Referring

to Section 238 of the Elections Act, 2017, he contended that the

domestic and international election observers are allowed to observe

the process of conduct of elections, access to Polling Stations, counting

of votes and consolidation of results in the elections of National and

the Provincial Assemblies and it should be extended to the elections of

the Senate also. He has relied upon the case of Workers’ Party Pakistan

through Akhtar Hussain, Advocate, General Secretary & 6 others v.

Federation of Pakistan & 2 others (PLD 2012 SC 681).

12. Mr. Niaz Ullah Khan Niazi, learned Advocate General,

Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) also adopted the arguments of the

learned Attorney General and while referring to Article 218(3) of the

Constitution, contended that it is the function of the Election

Commission of Pakistan to organize and conduct the elections and

make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure that the election

is conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law and

that the corrupt practices are guarded against. He in support of his

9
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 10
-

submissions has relied upon the following cases of Niaz Ahmad v.

Aiziuddin and others (PLD 1967 SC 466), S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S.

Gurcharan Singh Tohra and others (AIR 1980 SC 1362), A.

Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. George Mascrene and others (1994 SCC

Suppl (2) 619), Nayini Narasimha Reddy v. Dr. K. Laxman and others

[(2006) 5 SCC 239], Kuldip Nayar and other v. Union of India and others

(2006) 7 SCC 1), Shailesh Manubhai v. ECL (2018) 9 SCC 100), Air

Marshal (Retd). Muhammad Asghar Khan v. General (Retd). Mirza Aslam

Baig, Former Chief of Army Staff and others (PLD 2013 SC 1) and Ch.

Nasir Iqbal and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law

and others (PLD 2014 SC 72).

13. Mr. Shumail Ahmad Butt, learned Advocate General,

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has supported the Reference made by the

President and adopted the arguments of the learned Attorney General.

Additionally, he has contended that the Parliament, in terms of Article

222 of the Constitution, possesses the power to effect amendment in

Section 122(6) of the Elections Act, 2017, by changing the mode and

manner of conduct of elections by secret ballot to that of open ballot.

He contended that the elections ‘under the Constitution’ are those of

the President, Speaker and Deputy Speaker of National Assembly,

Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate, Prime Minister, Speaker

and Deputy Speaker of the Provincial Assemblies and the Chief

Ministers of the Provinces. With the specific provision in Article 226 of

the Constitution, the elections of the Prime Minister and the Chief

Ministers have been excluded from being conducted by secret ballot.

He has also contended that regarding secret ballot this Court has

already given its judgment in the case of Niaz Ahmed v. Azizuddin and

10
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 11
-

others (PLD 1967 Supreme Court 466), where it has been held that

secrecy of ballot is not an absolute rule. He has relied upon the cases

of District Bar Association, Rawalpindi and others v. Federation of

Pakistan and another (2015 PLD 401 SC), Muttahida Qaumi Movement

(MQM) through the leader of the opposition and others v. Province of

Sindh through Chief Secretary, Karachi and others (2017 PLD 169

Sindh), Attaullah and another v. Government of Balochistan, Local

Government Rural Development and Agrovilles Department through

Secretary and another (2014 PLD 206 Balochistan) and Kuldip Nayar v.

Union of India & Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 3127).

14. Mr. Salman Talib ud Din, learned Advocate General, Sindh,

contended that Article 186 of the Constitution requires obtaining of

opinion from the Supreme Court by the President on pure question of

law. He contended that there is no proof of corruption in Senate

election and it is all based upon hearsay. He further contended that

the question raised in the Reference is a political question.

15. The learned Advocate General also contended that the

Constitution provides machinery for holding of elections and imposes

burden upon the Election Commission of Pakistan to hold the election

honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law and the Election

Commission should ensure that the elections are held accordingly. He

further contended that Article 226 of the Constitution does not allow

open ballot, in that, election of members of the Senate could not be

allowed by open ballot. He has further referred to Articles 51 and 59 of

the Constitution to contend that open ballot for election in the Senate

is not allowed by the Constitution.

16. Mian Raza Rabbani, learned Sr. ASC appearing for himself

11
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 12
-

and also for Pakistan Peoples’ Party, has filed CMAs No.131/2021,

704/2021 and 1217/2021. He has raised an objection regarding the

very maintainability of the Reference by contending that proceedings

under Article 186 of the Constitution not similar to that of Article

184(3) thereof and the present Reference has ingredients of a petition

under Article 184(3) ibid. He has taken us through the history of

creation of Pakistan and evolution of Article 226 of the Constitution

and contended that he does not stand to defend non-transparency in

the electoral process and that the democratic culture evolved in

Pakistan cannot be viewed in isolation to the society, and Pakistani

society in all its spheres is corrupt to the core and democratic culture

is the reflection of the same. He contended that in order to cleanse this

very democratic culture, patchwork cannot solve the issue but requires

a consolidated political package that will cover electoral reforms of

Senate election to the General Elections and Local Governments’

Elections.

17. He contended that though he and his party do not support

horse trading but the present legal dispensation as per the

Constitution, requires Constitutional amendment and an electoral

reforms package is required. He made reference to the mala fide of the

Cabinet and gave instances of the same and while referring to Article

172 of the Constitution of 1962, contended that this Article provides

that all elections and referendums under this part shall be decided by

secret ballots and Article 226 of the Constitution of 1973, has carried

forward the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and Article 226 of

the Constitution of 1973 is of wider scope than that of Article 172 of

the Constitution of 1962, which includes all elections. He contended

12
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 13
-

that the original Article 226 of the Constitution was amended by the

Constitution (Third Amendment) Order, 1985, and subsequently

through Constitutional (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010, the

original Article 226 of the Constitution was restored. He contended

that the Senate is a House that represents Federation and protect the

interest of the Federating units and not the political parties.

18. Mr. Farooq H. Naek, learned Sr. ASC on behalf of Pakistan

Peoples’ Party Parliamentarian filed CMA No.872 of 2021. He has

contended that the aim of the applicant is to build a progressive and

democratic society in accordance with principles, philosophies and

politics of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. He contended that it

is evident from the bare reading of Article 186 of the Constitution that

the President may obtain opinion of this Court on any question of law,

whereas the question sent by the President is in essence a political

question, especially in the given circumstances when the Government

had already moved the (Twenty-sixth Constitution Amendment) Bill

but after its failure to get the amendment, used the office of the

President in shape of Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution.

This Court has already decided that political questions are non-

justiciable before the Courts of law.

19. With regard to the question whether the Senate Elections

are held under the Constitution, he submitted that the Senate

Elections are under the Constitution for the reason that Constitution

of Senate, the number of its members, the electoral system of

proportional representation by means of single transferable vote, the

term of office, qualification and disqualification, the timing of election,

the conduct of election, the method of challenging the elections are all

13
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 14
-

laid down in the Constitution itself. The Reference concedes that the

election of Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate, Speaker and

Deputy Speaker of National Assembly are under the Constitution. The

relevant Articles with respect to the said positions do not offer any

more details when compared with relevant provisions of the Senate

election, therefore, there is no reasonable differentia to take the Senate

election out of the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution. He further

contended that the literal rule of interpretation is that the Legislature

says what it means and means what it says. Applying this rule to

Article 226 ibid the election to the Senate is to be held by the secret

ballot.

20. Barrister Zafar Ullah Khan, learned ASC on behalf of

Pakistan Muslim League (N) has filed CMA No.1231 of 2021. He has

argued that the question that Senate election should be through secret

or open balloting is purely a political question, therefore, this Court

may refrain from entering into political debate. Further contended that

the doctrine of secrecy of ballot has a peculiar historical and

philosophical background. Secrecy is linked with fundamental rights

and international obligations and is ensured under the whole scheme

of the Constitution. Without secrecy, representative democracy will be

seriously damaged. The Constitution is binding social contract and its

interpretation be in a way to integrate the nation and not to polarize it.

Reference aims at a retrogressive step and also amounts to amending

the Constitution.

21. Mr. Kamran Murtaza, Sr.ASC on behalf of Jamiatulema-e-

Islam filed CMAs No.211 and 541 of 2021. He has submitted the

instant Reference is not maintainable, inasmuch as, it raises a political

14
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 15
-

question for which the Parliament is the appropriate forum. As the

Government lacks sufficient number in the Parliament, it is trying to

use this Court indirectly to make amendments in the Constitution. It is

further submitted that the President before passing an Ordinance

under Article 89, is bound to act on the advice of the Cabinet and the

Prime Minister and the term “satisfaction” is dependent upon the

mechanism referred in the Rules of Business, 1973. However, the

Election (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021, has been issued on the behest

of one political party hurriedly, without waiting the outcome of this

Reference, which shows the contradictory and confused position of the

Government.

22. Mr. Mansoor Usman Awan, learned ASC on behalf of

Pakistan Bar Council has submitted CMAs No.807 and 1200 of 2021.

He has contended that the language of Article 226 of the Constitution

contains no qualifier which limits its application to only the Elections

for which the procedure has been provided in the Constitution. In

presence of clear and unambiguous language, chosen by the framers of

the Constitution, any distinction falls foul of principle of ‘causes

omissus’. Reference in this behalf was made to the case of Reference

No.1 of 2012 (PLD 2013 SC 279). He contended that the Constitution

prescribe the procedure for only one election, namely, the election of

President, in Second Schedule to the Constitution. If Article 226 of the

Constitution is to apply only to the elections for which the procedure is

provided in the Constitution, it would mean that sole purpose for

enacting Article 226 ibid, was to apply it only to the election of the

President, however, the use of phrase ‘All Elections’ further

substantiates this argument. Further contended that the

15
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 16
-

Senate elections are held pursuant to the provisions of Part VIII of the

Constitution under which through Article 218 of the Constitution, the

Election Commission of Pakistan has been created. This Article clearly

specifies that the elections which are to be conducted under the

Constitution, are the elections of both Houses of the Parliament and

the Provincial Assemblies and all other elections, may be ‘specified by

Law’, as contained in Article 218 of the Constitution. Further

Contended that under Article 59(2) of the Constitution, elections are by

way of ‘system of proportional representation by means of the single

transferable vote’, which are distinct from the elections ‘through

proportional representation system of political parties’ lists of

candidates’, as provided in Article 51(6)(d) of the Constitution. The

requirement of guarding against the corrupt practices, under the

Elections Act, 2017 and the law laid down by this Court, does not

require the secrecy of the ballot to be breached. Thus, this Court may

declare that the elections under the Constitution, including the Senate

elections, may only be conducted by secret ballot pursuant to Article

226 of the Constitution.

23. Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed, learned ASC on behalf of the Sindh

High Court Bar Association submitted CMA No.297 of 2021. He has

argued that the President has wrongly and prematurely invoked Article

186 of the Constitution and the necessary preconditions for the same

are not met. Inasmuch as the Reference is purposely designed to

indulge in a political question, and it is an attempt to effect a

Constitutional Amendment under guise of an advisory Reference.

Thus, this Court may decline to answer such Reference.

24. Learned counsel further contended that the Senate

16
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 17
-

elections are the elections ‘under the Constitution’, as such the

requirement of secret balloting, contained in Article 226 of the

Constitution, is fully applicable and changing it to allow open balloting

is not possible without a Constitutional Amendment. Thus, this Court

may render opinion that the requirement of secret ballot in Article 226

of the Constitution is fully and squarely applicable to the Senate

elections under Article 59 of the Constitution.

25. Mr. Khurram Shehzad Chughtai, learned ASC has filed

CMA No.908 of 2021. He has contended that the question framed in

the Reference is not a question of law rather a political question for the

simple reason that the whole set of assertions, grounds, contentions

and arguments of the learned Attorney General are based on factual

controversy that is buying of votes by the candidates in the election of

Senate, which are result of secret ballot, therefore, the open ballot

should be adopted. It is further submitted that the President has sent

this Reference for advice of this Court to defeat the clear Constitutional

provisions regarding ‘secret ballot’ contrary to his constitutional role

and has also promulgated the Elections (Amendment) Ordinance,

2021. The actions in connection with the Reference and the said

Ordinance are ex facie an attempt to disturb the legislative business

regarding elections and also an attempt to cause harm to the

constitutional mandate of Election Commission of Pakistan. Thus, the

Reference and the said Ordinance are prima facie tainted with malice

in Law and facts. Further contended that there is not a single election,

which was unanimously accepted as free and fair by all the political

parties and always challenged by loosing parties. In 2014, a

Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reforms was constituted, which

17
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 18
-

after deliberations and considerations submitted its report, pursuant

thereto the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Bill, 2017, which

is still under consideration. In January, 2020, a Cabinet Committee

was constituted to formulate recommendations regarding electoral

reforms to ensure free and fair elections in the country based upon the

recommendations of the Committee. The Cabinet approved electoral

reforms package, which is still under consideration. It is the

fundamental duty and obligation of the Parliament to provide

mechanism for free and fair election.

26. Mr. Qamar Afzal, learned ASC has filed CMAs No.154 and

1295 of 2021 and has submitted that our Constitution is an

instructive Constitution and not an exhaustive one, which is like a

seed in womb to allow growth, therefore, it has provided Advisory

Jurisdiction under Article 186 of the Constitution empowering this

Court to exercise a sovereign inherent authority which is more than a

report or opinion. The object of the Reference is to get an opinion from

this Court that the Senate elections are not conducted “under the

Constitution”, and if this be so through an amendment in Section

122(6) of the Elections Act, 2017, the Senate election could be held

through open balloting. This Court has sovereign authority to discuss

the merits and demerits of secret balloting vis-à-vis open balloting and

may advise a solution finally to be undertaken by the Parliament. It

was prayed that this Court may answer the Reference by declaring the

Senate election “under the Constitution”, with an exception to Article

59(b) and (c) of the Constitution and may advise that the secret vote

cast shall be open for inspection after the expiry of the tenure of the

public office for which the vote is cast.

18
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 19
-

27. Mr. Waheed Ahmed Kamal, Secretary General, Pakistan

Tehreek-e-Insaf (Gulalai) has filed CMA No.1233 of 2021. He has

submitted that the danger in secret balloting is that the corruption will

rank high and will damage the integrity of the country. There is

allegation of buying of votes in the Senate election for handsome

amount of money, which practice should be stopped.

28. Syed Iqbal Hashmi, learned ASC has filed CMAs No.231 of

2021. He has addressed on the history of Article 226 of the

Constitution and prayed for allowing him to assist this Court.

29. Mr. Hassan Ifran Khan, learned ASC has filed CMA

No.1201 of 2021. He has submitted that the Senate election is clearly

“under the Constitution”, as provided by Article 59 of the Constitution.

The procedure for election is provided under Article 59(1)(a) to (f) and

Article 59(2) of the Constitution through proportional representation by

means of the single transferable vote. The Elections Act, 2017 only

provides various procedural steps to be adopted in the election

process. Article 59 of the Constitution does not provide for secret ballot

because under Article 226 of the Constitution, the secret ballot has to

be adopted for all elections held under the Constitution, except the

Prime Minister and the Chief Minister. The Senate elections are not

separate from the elections of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman

of Senate but part and parcel of each other. There is no basis for the

Reference to say that while the elections to the Office of the Chairman

and the Deputy Chairman of Senate, fall “under the Constitution”, the

election for members of the Senate are not under the Constitution.

Article 226 of the Constitution excludes only election of Prime Minister

and Chief Minister and does not exclude the Senate elections. The

19
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 20
-

issues of corrupt practices in the elections have already been

addressed by the Elections Act, 2017. Thus, the Reference in question

may be answered in negative.

30. Mr. Muddassur Hassan, Advocate High Court, has

submitted CMAs No.130 and 1292 of 2021. He has argued that the

word “All” in Article 226 of the Constitution, was used to emphasize

not to exclude any one of the elections mentioned in the Constitution

from the application of Article 226 of the Constitution. If the intention

of the legislation was to exclude the Senate election from the scope and

application of Article 226 of the Constitution it could have clearly done

so, in the same manner as was done in the case of Prime Minister and

the Chief Minister.

31. Mr. Azhar Iqbal, learned ASC has submitted CMA No.111 of

2021. He has argued that in democracy there is no place for corrupt

practices. In order to counter the rampant corruption in the Senate

election, it is very important to make certain arrangements for

guarding against the corrupt practices and the only mode is to print

serial number on the counter file as well as on the ballot paper.

32. Mr. Sajeel Sheryar Swati, learned ASC has filed concise

statements on behalf of the Election Commission of Pakistan, wherein

it is submitted that Article 226 contains three phrases, ‘all’, ‘under the

Constitution’ and ‘other than’, which are relevant for the purpose of

this Reference. The Reference, primarily, rests on the interpretation of

the term ‘under the Constitution’ and suggests that an election, which

is not under the Constitution, could be conducted in a manner other

than by ‘secret ballot’. The most ordinarily and natural meaning

elucidate by Article 226 ibid is that ‘elections under the Constitution’

20
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 21
-

are those elections, which are held by or under the authority of the

Constitution. This Article provides only two exceptions, namely,

election to the office of the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister. As

per rules of statutory interpretation when exceptions to a general rule

have been specified in the rule itself, those are the only exceptions and

no other exception can be implied or read into the said provision.

33. We have considered the submission made by the learned

counsel and have also gone through the record.

34. As the issue of very maintainability of the Reference has

been raised, we take up this issue first.

35. The learned Advocate General, Sindh, has raised the

objection that the Reference raises a political question and therefore,

this Court may not give its opinion. Similar objection has also been

raised by Mr. Farooq H. Naek, Mr. Zafrullah Khan, Mr. Kamran

Murtaz, Mr. Salah-ud-Din Ahmed and Mr. Khurram Shahzad

Chughtai, learned counsel. Mian Raza Rabbani, learned Sr. ASC has

objected to the Reference on the ground that proceedings under Article

186 are not akin to that of Article 184(3) of the Constitution and the

present Reference has ingredients of a petition under Article 184(3) of

the Constitution.

36. The learned Attorney General has made submissions

regarding the very maintainability of the Reference. He has contended

that the Reference is very much maintainable and the President of

Pakistan has rightly made the Reference in which opinion of this Court

has been sought on the question of law, which the President has

considered to be of public importance, and this Court has to consider

such a question and report its opinion to the President. He has cited

21
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 22
-

previous precedents on which the President has sought opinion from

this Court and the Court has given its opinion.

37. Whether the question, as is posed by the President in the

present Reference, is a question of law of public importance, learned

Attorney General has contended that it is such a question and

admitted that the question as to whether it is desirable to amend any

provision of the Constitution or the law, including Article 226 of the

Constitution, or whether there exists a consensus in the Parliament in

that regard, are political issues which fall within the exclusive domain

of the Parliament, however, as it is within the exclusive domain of this

Court to interpret the Constitutional provision, the President has

sought opinion of this Court, which necessarily requires interpretation

of the Constitution with particular reference to Article 226 of the

Constitution.

38. The Constitution of 1973 in its Article 186, has given

Advisory Jurisdiction to this Court in the following terms:

“186. Advisory Jurisdiction (1) If, at any time, the

President considers that it is desirable to obtain the
opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law
which he considers of public importance, he may refer
the question to the Supreme Court for consideration.

(2) The Supreme Court shall consider a question so

referred and report its opinion on the question to the
President.”

The plain reading of this Article shows that if at any time the

President considers that it is desirable to obtain the opinion of the

Supreme Court on any question of law which he considers of public

importance, he may refer the question to this Court for consideration,

and this Court shall consider a question so referred and report its

opinion on the said question to the President. The underlined principle

22
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 23
-

is that the question has to be of law and of public importance.

39. The first ever Reference under the Advisory Jurisdiction of

this Court was filed by his Excellency the Governor General, which is

reported as Reference by His Excellency the Governor-General (PLD

1955 FC 435). In this Reference, the Governor General has referred the

following question to the then Federal Court:

“(1) What are the powers and responsibilities, of the

Governor-General in respect of the Government of the
country before the new Constituent Convention passes
the necessary legislation?

(2) The Federal Court having held in Usif Patel's case

that the laws listed in the Schedule to the Emergency
Powers Ordinance could not be validated under section
42 of the Government of India Act, 1935, nor
retrospective effect given to them, and no Legislature
competent to validate such laws being in existence, is
there any provision in the constitution or any rule of
law applicable to the situation by which the Governor-
General can by order or otherwise declare that all
orders made, decisions taken and other acts done
under those laws shall be valid and enforceable and
those laws which cannot without danger to the State be
removed from the existing legal system shall be treated
as part of the law of the land until the question of their
validation is determined by the new Constituent
Convention?

Subsequently as suggested in the course of this Court's

order, dated the 18th April 1955, the following further
questions were also referred for opinion:

(3) Whether the Constituent Assembly was rightly

dissolved by the Governor-General?

(4) Whether the Constituent Convention proposed to be

set up by the Governor-General will be competent to
exercise the powers conferred by subsection (1) of
section 8 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, on the
Constituent Assembly?

Question No. 4 was later modified and in the form in

which it has now to be answered is:

Whether the Constituent Convention proposed to be set

up by the Governor-General will be competent to
exercise the powers conferred by section 8 of the Indian
Independence Act, 1947, on the Constituent Assembly.”

40. This Court extensively considered the question so posed

23
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 24
-

before it and ultimately gave its opinion as follows:

“OPINION OF THE COURT

Question No.1? What are the powers and

responsibilities of the Governor-General in respect of the
Government of the country before the new Constituent
Convention passes the necessary legislation?

Answer-That this question is too general and need not

be answered.

Question 2.-? The Federal Court having held in Usif

Patel's case (PLD 1955 F C 387), that the laws listed in
the Schedule to the Emergency Powers Ordinance could
not be validated under section 42 of the Government of
India Act, 1935, nor retrospective effect given to them,
and no Legislature competent to validate such laws
being in existence, is there any provision in the
Constitution or any rule of law applicable to the
situation by which the Governor-General can, by order
or otherwise declare that all orders made, decisions
taken, and other acts done under those laws, shall be
valid and enforceable and those laws which cannot
without danger to the State be removed from the
existing legal system shall be treated as part of the law
of the land until the question of their validation is
determined by the new Constituent Convention?

Answer.-That in the situation presented by the

Reference the Governor-General has during the interim
period that power under the common law of civil or state
necessity of retrospectively validating the laws listed in
the Schedule to the Emergency Powers Ordinance,
1955, and all those laws, until the question of their
validation is decided upon by the Constituent Assembly
are during the aforesaid period valid and enforceable in
the same way as if they had been valid from the date on
which they purported to come into force.

Question No.-3? Whether the Constituent Assembly was

rightly dissolved by the Governor-General.

Answer.- That on the facts stated in the Reference,

namely, (1) that the Constituent Assembly, though it
functioned for more than 7 years, was unable to carry
out the duty to frame a constitution for Pakistan to
replace the transitional constitution provided by the
Indian Independence Act, 1947 : (2) that in view of the
repeated representations from and resolutions passed
by representative bodies throughout the country the
Constituent Assembly, in the opinion of the Governor-
General, became in course of time wholly
unrepresentative of the people of Pakistan, and ceased
to be responsible to them ; (3) that for all practical
purposes the Constituent Assembly assumed the form of
a perpetual Legislature ; and (4) that throughout the
period of its existence the Constituent Assembly

24
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 25
-

asserted that the provisions made by it for the

constitution of the Dominion under subsection (1) of
section 8 of the Indian Independence Act were valid laws
without the consent of the Governor-General, the
Governor-General had under section 5 of the Indian
Independence Act, legal authority to dissolve the
Constituent Assembly.

Question No.4.- Whether the Constituent Convention

proposed to be set up by the Governor-General, is
competent to exercise the powers conferred by
subsection (1) of section 8 of the Indian Independence
Act, 1947, on the Constituent Assembly?

Answer.? That subject to this :

(1) that the correct name of the Constituent Convention

it Constituent Assembly ;

(2) that the Governor-General's right to dissolve the

Assembly can only be derived from the Indian
Independence Act ;

(3) that the arrangements for representation of States

and Tribal Areas can, under the proviso to subsection
(3) of section 19 of the Indian Independence Act, be
made only by the Constituent Assembly and not by the
Governor-General ; and

(4) that the Governor-General's duty being to bring into

existence a representative legislative institution he can
only nominate the electorate and not members to the
Constituent Assembly.

The new Assembly, constituted under the Constituent

Convention Order, 1935, as amended to date, would be
competent to exercise all the powers conferred by the
Indian Independence Act, 1947, on the Constituent
Assembly including those under section 8 of that Act.”

41. In Reference by the President of Pakistan under Article 162

of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1957 SC

219), the question for the court’s opinion was as under:

“Is the Governor of a Province in Pakistan empowered

under Article 83 or any other provision of the
Constitution or any other principle of law to dissolve the
Provincial Assembly of his Province functioning under
Article 225 of the Constitution?"

The Court gave its opinion as follows:

“For these reasons, we are of the view that the Governor

has no power to dissolve the Provincial Assembly
functioning under Article 225, and in accordance with
this opinion the reply to the Reference is in the

25
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 26
-

negative.”

42. In Special Reference under Article 187 of the Interim

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by the President Zulfiqar

Ali Bhutto (PLD 1973 SC 563), the question for consideration, inter alia,

was as under:

"Can the Resolution of the purport described in

paragraph 6 above, and envisaging such constitutional
measures as may be, necessary before the according of
formal recognition be validly adopted by to National
Assembly?

The question posed to the Court was with regard to the

Government of Pakistan giving formal recognition to Bangladesh

through a dissolution of the National Assembly of Pakistan. The Court

gave its opinion, inter alia, that there is no bar to the National

Assembly for considering or adopting the resolution of the purport

described in Para-6 of the Reference.

43. In Reference made by the President of Pakistan under Article

186 of the Constitution (PLD 1989 SC 75), the President of Pakistan has

sent the following question for opinion of this Court:

"In view of the aforementioned circumstances what

measures may be adopted to enable the Federal and
Provincial Governments to authorize incurring of
expenditure out of the Federal and Provincial
Consolidated Funds mentioned above in the absence of
National and Provincial Assemblies after 31-10-1988 till
the respective Budgets are passed by the new National
and Provincial Assemblies to be elected in the ensuing
general elections as aforesaid."

The Court gave its opinion as follows:

“In accordance with the majority opinion, the question

referred is answered as follows:-

The question referred under Article 186(1)

by the President of Pakistan is answered
under Article 186(2) in the terms that the
Federal and Provincial Governments can
authorize incurring of expenditure out of
the Federal and Provincial Consolidated

26
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 27
-

Funds upto one month after the declaration

of the results of the general election of the
National and the Provincial Assemblies,
scheduled for 16 and 19 November, 1988,
respectively.”

44. In Reference No.2 of 1996 reported as Al-Jihad Trust

through Raees-ul-Mujahidin Habib Al-Wahabul Khairi, Advocate

Supreme Court and another Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD

1997 SC 84) wherein petitions under Article 184(3) were also

considered by this Court along with Reference, the question was

whether or not the powers of the President to make appointment to the

Supreme Court and the High Courts under Articles 177 and 193 of the

Constitution are subject to provision of Article 48(1) of the

Constitution. The unanimous opinion of the Court was as follows:

"For the reasons to be recorded later, we hold that for

the appointments of Judges of the superior Courts
under Articles 177 and 193, Article 48(1) of the
Constitution is attracted and the President shall act in
accordance with the same provided it is in accordance
with the judgment in the case of Al-Jehad Trust v.
Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324.”

45. Another reference, Reference No.2 of 2005 by the President

of Pakistan (PLD 2005 SC 873) was in respect of constitutional validity

of the Hisba Bill enacted by the Provincial Assembly of the then North-

West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). The Court not only

found the reference to be maintainable but gave its opinion holding

various provisions of Hisba Bill as ultra vires the Constitution.

46. Another reference, Reference No.01 of 2012 (PLD 2013 SC

279) was with regard to seniority of a Judge in the Islamabad High

Court and his appointment as Chief Justice of that Court. This Court,

inter alia, gave opinion that though it is desirable that the most senior

Judge of the High Court should be appointed as Chief Justice of that

27
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 28
-

Court, however, in view of clauses (2) and (3) of Article 175A read with

clause (5) thereof, appointment of a judge not most senior judge as a

Chief Justice of High Court is not violative of any provision of the

Constitution.

47. The overall examination of the opinions rendered by this

Court on the References made by the then Governor General and the

President shows that most diverse questions have been sent for

opinion of this Court, which questions were of law and of public

importance. The consensus of these opinions show that whenever

question or questions are sent to this Court for opinion, the Court has

always given its opinion. However, where the question does not admit

of opinion, the Court has answered it accordingly. As to what the

opinion of the Court would be, the same can only be decided on

examining the material placed before the Court for seeking of the

opinion. In our view, the present Reference and the question posed

before the Court is within the domain of Article 186 of the

Constitution.

48. We may note that the very document of the Constitution of

1973, is a political document, which the people of Pakistan through

their chosen representatives have given to themselves, in which limits

of powers to be exercised by the State organs have been expressly laid

down. The State and its organs have to function within those limits

and all excesses of limits would be nothing but illegal. Broadly

speaking, where the questions such as that of Foreign Policy, Defence

of the Country from external threat, Monetary Policy, making

amendments in the Constitution, organizing the governments at the

Federal and Provincial level apparently, are the questions purely of

28
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 29
-

political nature and the Courts always exercise restraint in entering

upon such questions as these questions necessarily are best left to the

people, subject, however to the law laid down by this Court in the case

of District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD

2015 SC 401) which is a full Court decision.

49. The question that has been posed before the Court by the

present Reference is more of interpretation of the Constitutional

provisions, particularly, Article 226 of the Constitution and in all

circumstances, it is the exclusive domain of the superior Courts

especially this Court, to interpret the Constitutional provisions. In the

District Bar Association, Rawalpindi’s case ibid this Court has observed

that in Pakistani Constitutional dispensation, the duty of the judiciary

was to protect the Constitution as the embodiment of the will of the

people. Failing to do so, would deny the role for which the Courts had

been created. This important consideration must be factored into the

role of the Courts and Judges while interpreting the Constitution.

Powers vested in and exercisable by Courts were not a matter of

Parliamentary grace or sufferance, but were granted to protect the

people against the excesses, inter alia, of the State organs and

functionaries. As such, these powers were to be guarded vigilantly

against erosion and encroachment because the same were a grant of

the Constitution for an important fiduciary purpose.

50. Thus, the superior Courts and this Court, being the

exclusive forum for the interpretation of the constitutional provisions,

conferred on it by the Constitution itself, and the question which is

raised in the present Reference being primarily of interpretation of the

constitutional provisions, particularly, its Article 226, we, in our

29
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 30
-

opinion, find the Reference to be maintainable.

51. Now dealing with the question in the Reference, it is

essential to read Article 226 of the Constitution, in the first place,

which is as follows:-

“226. Election by secret ballot.- All elections under the

Constitution, other than those of the Prime Minister and
the Chief Minister, shall be by secret ballot.”

It is apparent from reading of Article 226 of the Constitution that

it has made provision that all elections under the Constitution, other

than those of the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister, shall be by

secret ballot.

52. Before proceeding to interpret this Article of the

Constitution, it is necessary to consider the scheme of the Constitution

providing for the elections. The Constitution has provided Offices and

Bodies, which are to be elected and those Offices are that of the

President of Pakistan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Speaker and

the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chairman and the

Deputy Chairman of the Senate, the Chief Ministers of the Provinces

and the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Provincial Assemblies.

53. Article 41(3) of the Constitution provides that the President

shall be elected in accordance with the provision of Second Schedule

by the members of the Electoral College consisting of the members of

both Houses, i.e. the National Assembly and the Senate and members

of the Provincial Assemblies. The Second Schedule to the Constitution

enjoins upon the Election Commission of Pakistan to hold and conduct

the election of the Office of the President and whole procedure for the

election and announcing of its result, has been laid down in the

Second Schedule to the Constitution.

30
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 31
-

54. The election to the Office of the Prime Minister is provided

under Article 91(3) of the Constitution and clause (4) thereof provides

that the Prime Minister shall be elected by the votes of the majority of

the total membership of the National Assembly. The election to the

Office of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly

is provided in Article 53(1) of the Constitution, while election to the

Office of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Senate is

provided in Article 60(1) of the Constitution. The election to the Office

of the Chief Minister of the Province is provided under Article 130(3) of

the Constitution and clause (4) thereof provides that the Chief Minister

shall be elected by the votes of the majority of the total membership of

the Provincial Assembly. The election to the Office of the Speaker and

the Deputy Speaker of the Provincial Assembly is provided under

Article 108 of the Constitution. Article 51(6) of the Constitution

provides for the election of the National Assembly. Article 59(1) and (2)

of the Constitution provides for the election to fill seats in the Senate.

55. As we are dealing with the matter of election to the Senate.

Article 59(1) & (2) needs to be responded as under:-

“59. (1) The Senate shall consist of [ninety-six]

members, of whom,-

(a) fourteen shall be elected by the members of each

Provincial Assembly;

* * * * * * *
(c) two on general seats, and one woman and one
technocrat including aalim shall be elected from the
Federal Capital in such manner as the President may,
by Order, prescribe;

(d) four women shall be elected by the members of

each Provincial Assembly;

(e) four technocrats including ulema shall be elected

by the members of each Provincial Assembly; and

31
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 32
-

(f) four non-Muslims, one from each Province, shall

be elected by the members of each Provincial Assembly:

Provided that paragraph (f) shall be effective from

the next Senate election after the commencement of the
Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010.

(2) Election to fill seats in the Senate allocated to

each Province shall be held in accordance with the
system of proportional representation by means of the
single transferable vote.

Clause (1) of Article 59 of the Constitution provides that the

Senate shall consist of ninety-six members and paragraphs (a) to (f)

provide for election of the members of the Senate. Clause (2) of Article

59 of the Constitution provides that the election to fill seats in the

Senate allocated to each Province shall be held in accordance with the

system of proportional representation by means of the single

transferable vote.

56. The use of the word “elected”, which is a second form of

word elect of which noun is “election” will bring this very election

within the term ‘all elections under the Constitution’, as provided in

Article 226 of the Constitution and such elections are to be held by

secret ballot. No other meaning to Article 226 of the Constitution can

legitimately be given than the one that the election to the Senate are

elections under the Constitution and they are to be held by secret

ballot. No exclusion of elections either of the President, or that of the

Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the National as well as the

Provincial Assemblies, and the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of

the Senate, from the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution, which

has itself excluded from its operation, the elections of the Prime

Minister and the Chief Ministers.

57. Part VIII of the Constitution deals with the Elections.

32
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 33
-

Chapter 2 thereof contains, inter alia, Article 222, which is as follows: -

“222. Subject to the Constitution, [Majlis-e-Shoora

(Parliament)] may by law provide for—

(a) the allocation of seats in the National Assembly as

required by clauses (3) and (4) of Article 51;
(b) the delimitation of constituencies by the Election
Commission [including delimitation of
constituencies of local governments];
(c) the preparation of electoral rolls, the requirements
as to residence in a constituency, the
determination of objections pertaining to and the
commencement of electoral rolls;

(d) the conduct of elections and election petitions the

decision of doubts and disputes arising in
connection with elections;

(e) matters relating to corrupt practices and other

offences in connection with elections; and

(f) all other matters necessary for the due

constitution of the two Houses [,] the Provincial
Assemblies [and local governments];

but no such law shall have the effect of taking away or

abridging any of the powers of the Commissioner or an
Election Commission under this Part.”

58. Pursuant to this very provision of the Constitution, the

Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has promulgated the Elections Act, 2017.

Section 239 of the Act of 2017, gave powers to the Commission, by

notification in the official gazette and published on the website of the

Commission, to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the said

Act. The Election Rules, 2017, have been made by the Election

Commission of Pakistan, in the manner provided by Section 239 of the

Act of 2017.

59. Chapter VII of the Elections Act, 2017, deals with the

subject of conduct of election to the Senate and it contains Sections

105 to 131, where exhaustive manner has been provided for the

conduct of election to the Senate. Section 122 thereof deals with the

33
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 34
-

procedure of voting and sub-section (6) thereof provides as follows:

“(6) The poll for election of Members of the Senate

shall be held by secret ballot.”

Though the above mention sub-section (6) of Section 122 of the

Elections Act, 2017, has laid down that the poll for election of

members of the Senate shall be held by secret ballot but making of this

provision will not cast any shadow or doubt on provision of Article 226

of the Constitution, being a Constitutional provision which

independently controls its own mandate being the supreme law of the

land.

60. In Section 81 of the Elections Act, 2017, provision has been

made that elections shall be held by secret ballot and, subject to

provisions of Section 93 (Postal ballot), 94 (Voting by Overseas

Pakistanis) and Section 103 (Electronic voting and biometric

verification). This provision is contained in Chapter V of the Elections

Act, 2017, which provides for the conduct of elections to the

Assemblies.

61. The learned Attorney General has contended that the

elections to the Assemblies by direct and free voting is provided in the

very Constitution. Such voting cannot be held by open ballot as the

very principle of direct voting and free voting requires secret ballot.

Thus, providing for secret ballot in Section 81 of the Elections Act,

2017, does not change the very character of the elections, which are

provided by the Constitution to be conducted through secret ballot.

Same is the case with regard to the provision of sub-section (6) of

Section 122 of the Elections Act, 2017, where it has provided for secret

ballot in the election of the members of the Senate.

34
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 35
-

62. We may also make reference to the provision of Article 225

of the Constitution, which provides that no election to a House or a

Provincial Assembly shall be called in question except by an election

petition presented to such Tribunal and in such manner as may be

determined by Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). The learned

Attorney General has contended that this very Article of the

Constitution i.e. Article 225 only provides for challenge to elections for

House, which is defined under Article 260 of the Constitution to mean

the Senate or the National Assembly, and to the Provincial Assemblies,

and this bar does not extend to the elections that of the President, the

Prime Minister, the Chief Minister, the Speaker and the Deputy

Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chairman and the Deputy

Chairman of the Senate and the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of

the Provincial Assemblies.

63. We may not like to give any opinion on this very submission

of the learned Attorney General for that while making interpretation of

Article 226 of the Constitution, the construction and interpretation of

Article 225 of the Constitution substantially may not be of much

relevance, as no nexus, apparently, is found between the two Articles.

64. The learned Attorney General during the course of his

arguments has greatly emphasized upon the provisions of paragraphs

(d) and (e) of clause (6) of Article 51 of the Constitution, to contend that

the reserved seats for women and reserved seats for non-Muslims in

the National Assembly are not filled in by direct and free vote rather by

the proportional representation system of political parties’ lists of

candidates. He has contended that no election to these seats are held,

in that, no voting or polling for these seats are conducted, rather the

35
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 36
-

names from the parties’ lists for the seats provided in paragraphs (d)

and (e) are accepted to be elected in the National Assembly. His

contention was that this different manner of election of seats in the

National Assembly, to be filled under paragraphs (d) and (e) will come

in direct conflict with Article 226 of the Constitution but it can be

reconciled, if it is accepted that Article 51 ibid only provides for

composition and complexion of the National Assembly that is

comprising of directly elected representative of the people on general

seats, women seats and minority seats through method specified there,

leaving the elections to be conducted in accordance with law.

65. We may note that such an interpretation as proposed by

the learned Attorney General, apparently, does not read out from the

Constitution as the elections to the National Assembly as a whole is

provided in Article 51(6) ibid and a special method and manner of

elections to the women seats and the minority seats has itself been

provided in constitutional machinery, and these elections are to be

held as elections under the Constitution, and cannot be legally and

justifiably separated from the scheme of elections provided in the

Constitution.

66. Paragraph (a) of clause (6) of Article 51 of the Constitution

provides that the constituencies for the general seats shall be single

member territorial constituencies and the members to fill such seats

shall be elected by direct and free vote in accordance with law. This

provision specifically deals with the manner in which constituencies

for the general seats are to be voted and while election itself is to be

conducted under the very Article 51(6) ibid, the manner of direct and

free vote has been left to be in accordance with law. No such similar

36
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 37
-

provision has been made in respect of the election to the seats reversed

for women and seats reserved for non-Muslims, which are to be

conducted in the manner as is provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of

clause (6) of Article 51 of the Constitution.

67. The learned Attorney General has contended that Article

226 of the Constitution does not use the term all elections, referred to

in the Constitution, shall be by secret ballot or all elections, to the

Offices and Bodies established under the Constitution, shall be by

secret ballot.

68. We see no reason as to why Article 226 of the Constitution

in any manner be read other than the language, which has been

applied and used in the very Article and it plainly says all elections

under the Constitution, other than those of the Prime Minister and the

Chief Minister, shall be by secret ballot. Once the Article 226 itself

uses the term ‘all elections under the Constitution’, it cannot be read

in any other manner then that all elections under the Constitution, as

stated and discussed in the preceding paras.

69. It is true that general principle of interpretation of the

Constitution is that no specific provision of the Constitution has to be

read in isolation. The Constitution is an organic whole. It is true that

no provision of the Constitution could be interpreted in isolation,

rather the Constitution has to be read organically and holistically, and

articles and clauses of the Constitution, if read in isolation from the

rest of the Constitution, may mislead the readers because the meaning

of the Constitution has to be gathered from the Constitution as an

integrated whole, not as a mechanical deduction but based on reasons.

70. In this background, the learned Attorney General has read

37
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 38
-

different provisions of the Constitution to demonstrate that in some of

the provisions of the Constitution, the Constitution has used the words

‘by the Constitution’, ‘under the Constitution’, ‘by or under the

Constitution’, ‘by the Constitution or by Act of Parliament’, ‘by the

Constitution or by or under any law’, ‘by the Constitution or by law

made by Parliament’, ‘by, under, or by virtue of the Constitution’, ‘in

accordance with the Constitution’, ‘by or under an Act of Parliament,

‘by or under any law’ and ‘by virtue of’. He contends that by use of

different terminologies in the constitutional provisions, each of such

terminologies is to be given meaning in the context in which the same

has been used and thus, in the present context it only means that the

Houses have to be constituted by law and under the Constitution. The

elections to these Houses are elections under the Elections Act, 2017

and not under the Constitution, and reference to election under Article

226 of the Constitution is only restricted to the elections held under

the Constitution itself, such as, election of the President and not the

election of the Houses, which are held under the Elections Act, 2017.

71. It is also settled principle of interpretation of the

constitutional provisions that there is a possibility of restricting the

meaning of certain words in the Constitution, to the situation provided

by the Constitution itself. No different meaning could be assigned to

specific words in a given provision of the Constitution for the reason

that in other places the Constitution has used different terminologies.

Even though there may be different terminologies used in the

Constitution but until any nexus is found by those other terminologies

to the terminology used in a specific provision of the Constitution, in

our view, the very specific provision has to be given plain meaning to it

38
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 39
-

without the reading into it.

72. As noted in the preceding discussion that the elections to

the Houses are provided by the Constitution itself and we cannot see

as to how the election, for Houses, which otherwise are to be held

under the Constitution, could be taken out from the purview of the

Constitution and hold that they are held under the Elections Act,

2017. Taking of the view, as propounded by the learned Attorney

General, in our view, will not be harmonious and holistic construction

of the Constitution.

73. Article 226 of the Constitution has its own characteristics

and when read as a whole, leads to only one conclusion that the words

‘all elections under the Constitution’, are all those elections, which are

provided in the Constitution including the elections to the Senate. The

elections to the Senate are held under the Constitution and the

procedure and machinery provision for conducting of the elections to

the Senate is laid down in the Elections Act, 2017. The substantive

provision of the elections to the Senate are contained in the

Constitution while the Elections Act, 2017, only deals with the

procedure and machinery provision for holding of such elections.

74. As regard the transparency and purity in the elections,

Article 218(3) of the Constitution provides as follows: -

“218. Election Commission.- (1) ………………………..

(2) ………………………………………………………………..
(3) It shall be the duty of the Election Commission to
organize and conduct the election and to make such
arrangements as are necessary to ensure that the
election is conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in
accordance with law, and that corrupt practices are
guarded against.”

In the case of Workers’ Party Pakistan through Akhtar Hussain,

39
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 40
-

Advocate, General Secretary and 6 others vs. Federation of Pakistan

and 2 others (PLD 2012 SC 681), this Court while interpreting Article

218(3) of the Constitution has observed as follows:

“40. A bare reading of Article 218(3) makes it clear that

the Election Commission is charged with the duty to
‘organize’ and 'conduct the election'. The language of the
Article implies that the Election Commission is
responsible not only for conducting the election itself,
but also for making all necessary arrangements for the
said purpose, prior to the Election Day. By conferring
such responsibility on the Election Commission, the
Constitution ensures that all activities both prior, on
and subsequent to Election Day, that are carried out in
anticipation thereof, adhere to standards of justness
and fairness, are honest, in accordance with law and
free from corrupt practices. This Court in Election
Commission of Pakistan v. Javaid Hashmi and others
(PLD 1989 SC 396), observed that "(g)enerally speaking
election is a process which starts with the issuance of
the election programme and consists of the various links
and stages in that behalf, as for example, filing of
nomination papers, their scrutiny, the hearing of
objections and the holding of actual polls. If any of these
links is challenged it really (is) tantamount to
challenging the said process of election". It interpreted
that the phrase 'conduct the election' as having "wide
import" and including all stages involved in the election
process. These observations subject all election related
activities that take place between the commencement
and the end of the election process to the jurisdiction
conferred on the Election Commission under Article
218(3). The Election Commission therefore has to test
all election related activities that are carried out in the
relevant period, both individually and collectively,
against the standards enumerated therein.

41. The Election Commission may also exercise its

powers in anticipation of an ill that may have the effect
of rendering the election unfair. In the case titled as In
Re: Petition filed by Syed Qaim Ali Shah Jellani (PLD
1991 Jour. 41) the Elections Commission exercised its
powers under Article 218(3) pre-emptively, by making all
necessary arrangements to ensure that a certain class of
people would be allowed to vote. This case implies that
where a violation of the standards mentioned in Article
218(3) has not as yet taken place, the Election
Commission is legally empowered under Article 218(3) to
exercise its powers pre-emptively in order to avoid a
violation of these standards. Furthermore, Mst. Qamar
Sultana v. Public at Large (1989 MLD 360) and In Re:
Complaint of Malpractices in Constituency No. NA-57,
Sargodha-V (supra) both reinforce the argument that the
Election Commission is fully empowered by Article
218(3) to make 'such orders as may in its opinion be

40
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 41
-

necessary for ensuring that the election is fair, honest

etc'. These decisions recognize that the Election
Commission enjoys broad powers not only to take pre-
emptive action but also to pass any and all orders
necessary to ensure that the standards of 'honesty,
justness and fairness' mentioned in Article 218(3) are
met.

While dealing with the provision of Article 220 of the Constitution, this

Court has observed as follows:

“42. … Article 220 of the Constitution also directs the

Federal and Provincial machinery to assist the Election
Commission in fulfilling its constitutional
responsibilities. The law, therefore, entrusts the Election
Commission with exclusive, broad and extensive powers
to attend to all issues related directly and ancillary to
the election process.”

In the case of Ch. Nasir Iqbal and others v. Federation of Pakistan

through Secretary Law and others (2013 SCMR 874), while considering

the difficulties faced by the Election Commission of Pakistan regarding

identification of Pakistani voters living abroad, this Court observed as

follows:

“ … Firstly, amendment in the Representation of

the People Act, 1976 and signing of MOUs with the
countries where ECP proposed to extend the facility of
voting to Overseas Pakistanis on the plea that in some of
the countries such congregations are prohibited.
Attending to this aspect of the case, we observe that as
at present interim Government is functioning, the
amendments so desired or required can be made by
adhering to the procedure of temporary legislation, as
provided under Article 89 of the Constitution. So far as
signing of MOUs is concerned, no law has been cited,
however, in this behalf if need be, the ECP can solicit
opinion from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

Secondly, the issue of non-availability of software,

which shall he used by the Overseas Pakistanis for the
purpose of extending facility/benefit to cast their votes
and if the Ministry of I.T. is taken into confidence or
independently the I.T. experts are engaged with the
mandate to prepare such software under the
instruments as early as possible but in any case much
before the date of polling this difficulty can also be
overcome; and

Thirdly, the issue of identification of the

voters/electors who are living in different countries.

41
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 42
-

Again this issue relates to NADRA and on taking on

board the authorities of NADRA, the issue being faced
by the ECP can conveniently be resolved.
2. We are constrained to observe that these petitions
are pending since 2011 onward and much time has
already been given to the ECP to do the needful, but so
far no progress in this behalf has been made except
analyzing suggestions which were put forward by the
Court itself and offering explanation to convince the Court
that extending the right of franchise to the Overseas
Pakistani Citizens is not possible this time but we are not
persuaded because as has been observed time and again
that these difficulties are not insurmountable and could
conveniently be solved within a shortest possible time if
there is a coordinated effort between the ECP, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, NADRA and
other authorities relevant in this behalf in order to
achieve the object and all possible efforts must be
made to allow an opportunity to the Overseas Pakistanis
so they may participate in the election of their
representatives in National and Provincial Assemblies.”

77. Article 222 of the Constitution while empowering the

Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to make laws, inter alia, providing for

matters relating to corrupt practices and others offences in connection

with elections but has provided that no such law shall have the effect

of taking away or abridging any of the powers of the Commissioner or

the Election Commission. This very provision of the Constitution itself

prohibits the Majils-e-Shoora (Parliament) from making of such law

which shall have the effect of taking away or abridging any of the

powers of the Commissioner or the Election Commission, thus, the

Commissioner or the Election Commission has all powers vested in

them to ensure that the elections are organized and conducted

honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law and corrupt

practices are guarded against.

78. Article 220 of the Constitution also provides that it shall be

the duty of all executive authorities in the Federation and in the

Provinces to assist the Commissioner and the Election Commission in

the discharge of his or their functions.

42
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 43
-

79. We may her make reference to the case reported as Niaz

Ahmad v. Azizuddin and others (PLD 1967 SC 466), wherein there was

a dispute for election to the Electoral College of Pakistan in Electoral

Unit No.446, Garden Quarters, Karachi, in which some 48 votes where

challenged. The Presiding Officer endorsed ballot papers, issued to the

challenged voters, with the serial numbers of the Electors in the Voters’

List and in some cases, the names of the voters and their parentage

was also endorsed on the ballot papers. The Court dealt with the

matter as follows:

“It will be seen that the majority judgment in the

High Court turned on the true effect of Article 172 of the
Constitution, which enjoins that all elections and
referendums under Part VII of the Constitution shall be
decided by secret ballot. The first question, therefore,
that arises for consideration is whether this provision
should be interpreted as implying that absolute and
ideal secrecy is to be aimed at, during an election. If this
had been the intention, however, one would have
expected some further guide-lines to be given in the
Constitution itself, on this point. On the contrary, the
matter has been left to be regulated by
sub-constitutional Legislation, as laid down in Article
164 of the Constitution. That Article reads as follows:-

"Elections and referendums required to be held

under this Constitution shall, subject to this
Constitution, be conducted and decided in such
manner as may be provided by law."

The relevant provisions of the Act, therefore, are

referable to this Article. Waheeduddin Ahmad, J., in
support of his position that the Constitutional
injunction regarding secrecy is an absolute one, referred
to an English decision, reported as Woodward v.
Sarsons & Sadler (32 L T R 867). In that case, which
related to Municipal elections in England, the Presiding
Officer at one of the polling stations had marked on the
face of 294 ballot papers, the numbers on the burgess
rolls, of the voters in question. The ballot papers so
marked were rejected by the Returning Officer as invalid
and his decision was upheld. It has, however, been
pointed out by Anwarul Haq, J., and recognised by
Farooqi, J that the case is distinguishable from the
present one in so far as there was express provision in
section 2 of the Ballot Act, to the effect that any ballot
paper, which has not on its back the official mark or on
which votes are given to more candidates than the voter

43
Reference No.1 of 2020 - 44
-

is entitled to vote for, or on which anything except the

said number on the back is written or marked, by which
the voter can be identified, shall be void and not
counted. It cannot be said, therefore, that the decision
in that case was based on any notion of absolute secrecy
apart from the specific provision of the statute.

As has been noticed even in the High Court, some

guidance could be obtained from the decision of this
Court in Mir Ghulam Nabi Khan v. The Election
Petitions Tribunal, on this point. The case dealt with a
dispute about the election to the West Pakistan Interim
Legislature. The arrangements made by the Governor for
the conduct of elections under para. 10, Second
Schedule, Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955,
consisted of certain rules and notes of guidance issued
to the Returning Officers. The rules, inter alia, provided
that the poll shall be by secret ballot and that the ballot
paper was to be deposited by the voter in the ballot box
bearing the symbol or colour assigned to the candidate
in whose favour the voter wished to vote. In addition to
this, one of the directions in the notes of guidance was
to the effect that the ballot boxes should be placed on
the table of the Returning Officer. It was contended that
the latter direction amounted to breach of the rule
requiring secrecy of the ballot. It was held that in an
election conducted by means of the coloured box
system, it would be in the nature of things necessary
that the ballot boxes were kept in the view of the
Presiding Officer or some other officer appointed by him,
so that foul play could be successfully averted and blind
or colour blind voters could be helped to cast their
votes. The reasonable interpretation of the relevant rule
was that it required secrecy consistent with the
supervision which was essential for a fair election to be
held. It was further observed that even if absolute
secrecy was contemplated by the arrangement, it did not
seem fair or reasonable to disfranchise voters merely
because a rule had been violated by the Returning
Officer. Reliance was placed in that case on the following
passage occurring in Vol. 18 of American
Jurisprudence, Elections, 225:

"It may, therefore, be stated as a general rule that

if ballots are cast by voters who are, at the time,
qualified to cast them and who have done all on
their part that the law requires of voters to make
their voting effective, an erroneous or even
unlawful handling of the ballots, by the election
officers charged with such responsibility, will not
be held to disfranchise such voters, by throwing
out their votes, on account of erroneous
procedure had solely by the election officers,
provided the votes are legal votes in their
inception and are still capable of being given
proper effect as such. Nor will an election be set
aside because of irregularities on the part of the
election officials, unless it appears that such

44
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 45
-

irregularities affect the result."

The secrecy of the ballot, therefore, has not to be

implemented in the ideal or absolute sense but to be
tempered by practical considerations necessitated by the
processes of election. Viewed in this light the question
whether the provisions of Article 172 of the Constitution
are to be regarded as mandatory or directory, would not
apparently arise.”

80. After we have heard the learned counsel for the parties, we

have announced our opinion, which is as follows: -

OPINION OF THE COURT

For the detailed opinion to be recorded later, by majority

of 4 against 1 (Yahya Afridi, J.) dissenting, the
REFERENCE is answered as follows:

(i) The Elections to the Senate of Pakistan are held

“under the Constitution” and the law;

(ii) It is the duty of the Election Commission of

Pakistan in terms of Article 218(3) of the
Constitution, to ensure that the election is
conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in
accordance with law and that corrupt practices
are guarded against on which this Court has given
successive judgments and the most exhaustive
being Workers’ Party Pakistan through Akhtar
Hussain, Advocate, General Secretary & 6
others v. Federation of Pakistan & 2 others
(PLD 2012 SC 681);

(iii) The Election Commission of Pakistan is required

by the Constitution to take all necessary steps in
order to fulfil the above mandate/duty in terms of
Article 222 of the Constitution, which empowers
the Parliament, subject to the Constitution to
legislate, inter alia, on the conduct of elections
and matters relating to corrupt practices and
other offences in connection with elections but
categorically provides that, “no such law shall
have the effect of taking away or abridging any of
the powers of the Commissioner or the Election
Commission” under Part VIII, Chapter 1 of the
Constitution;

(iv) Further in terms of Article 220 of the

Constitution, all the executive authorities in the
Federation and Provinces are obliged to assist the
Commissioner and the Election Commission of
Pakistan in discharge of his or their functions, as
provided for in Article 218(3) of the Constitution;

45
 Reference No.1 of 2020 - 46
-

(v) As far as the secrecy of ballot is concerned, this

Court has already answered this question in a
judgment of a 5-member Bench of this Court
reported as Niaz Ahmad v. Azizuddin & others
(PLD 1967 SC 466), where it has been held that
secrecy is not absolute and that “the secrecy of the
ballot, therefore, has not to be implemented in the
ideal or absolute sense but to be tempered by
practical considerations necessitated by the
processes of election”;

(vi) Furthermore, in order to achieve the mandate of

the Election Commission in terms of Article 218(3)
read with Article 220 and other enabling
provisions of the Constitution and the law, the
Election Commission is required to take all
available measures including utilizing
technologies to fulfil the solemn constitutional
duty to ensure that the election is “conducted
honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law
and that corrupt practices are guarded against”.

81. Above are the reasons of the same.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE JUDGE

LARGER BENCH
ISLAMABAD
01.03.2021 JUDGE JUDGE
*Rabbani*
APPROVED FOR REPORTING I with respect differ with
the above, and have
noted my reasons for the
dissent.

46
 YAHYA AFRIDI, J.- The worthy President of the Islamic

Republic of Pakistan (“President”) has sought the opinion of this

Court under Article 186 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic

of Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”) on the following question:

Whether the condition of ‘secret ballot’ referred to in Article 226 of

the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is applicable
only for the elections held ‘under’ the Constitution such as the
election to the office of President of Pakistan, Speaker and Deputy
Speaker of National Assembly, Chairman and Deputy Chairman
of Senate, Speakers and Deputy Speakers of the Provincial
Assemblies and not to other elections such as the election for the
members of the Senate of Pakistan held under the Elections Act,
2017, enacted pursuant to Article 222 read with Entry 41, Part 1,
Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, which may be held by way
of secret or open ballot, as may be provided for in the Election
Act, 2017?

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan was pleased to constitute a

Bench of five Judges to consider, and report the opinion of the

Court on, the question referred in the Reference. After thorough

deliberation of all aspects of the question referred in the Reference,

and considering the valuable submissions of the learned Attorney-

General for Pakistan and all other learned counsel representing the

persons, who had applied and were allowed by the Court to be

heard in the present Reference, I came to the conclusion that:

“the opinion sought by the Worthy President, Islamic Republic of

Pakistan in the instant Reference, is not [on] a question of law
within the contemplation of Article 186 of the Constitution of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, accordingly, the same is
returned unanswered.”

Submissions

2. The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan (“Attorney-General”)

was first to address the Court. He commenced his submissions by

adroitly submitting the concern of the worthy President regarding

the state of political affairs in the then approaching Senate

elections, which warranted an urgent opinion of the Court on the

referred question. The core submission of the Attorney-General

Reference No. 1 of 2020 2

was that Article 226 of the Constitution requiring “secret ballot” is

restricted to elections for offices and authorities, the procedure

whereof is expressly provided under the Constitution and not

under the Election Act, 2017 (“Act”). He, thus, concluded that as

the procedure for election to the Senate is not provided in the

Constitution but in the Act, the requirement of “secret ballot”

under Article 226 of the Constitution does not apply thereto. His

stance was endorsed in unison by the Provincial Governments,1

where the political party that forms the Federal Government,2 or a

political party in coalition with that party is in power, while the

said stance was starkly opposed by the Government of Sindh,

where the governing political position is otherwise.

3. Similarly, the position of the political parties who had

applied and were allowed audience before the Court, also exposed

a clear divide between the ruling and major opposition political

parties in the Parliament. A brief resume of the stand taken by the

said opposition parties is as follows:

Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F)

3.1. The learned counsel for Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F) contended

that during the pendency of the present Reference, the Election

(Amendment) Ordinance 2021 (“Ordinance of 2021”) was issued

which undermined the pending judicial proceedings of the present

Reference; that different attempts are being made to ensure that

the Senate elections are conducted by open ballot; and that the

President cannot overreach legislative power which vests in

1
Government of Punjab, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Government of Baluchistan.
2
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf.
Reference No. 1 of 2020 3

Parliament. He prayed that the Ordinance of 2021 may be declared

void and ultra vires to the Constitution as it undermines the

judicial proceedings of the present pending Reference.

Jammat-e-Islami

3.2. The learned counsel for Jamaat-e-Islami contended that the

present Reference is not maintainable and should be returned

unanswered, as it raises a political question for which the

appropriate forum would be the Parliament to amend section

122(6) of the Election Act 2017; that the advisory jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 186 of the Constitution is not binding on

the other branches of government; and that, the Federal

Government seeks to amend the Constitution indirectly by

obtaining an opinion from this Court via the present Reference.

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)

3.3. The learned counsel for the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP)

contended that the present Reference should be returned

unanswered, as it comprises of a political question, which is non-

justiciable. Reference was made to the failure of the Federal

Government to get the 26th Constitutional Amendment Bill passed

through the National Assembly for amendment of Clause 2 of

Article 59 and Article 226 of the Constitution, thereby submitting

that the said Reference seeks to further political objectives.

Without prejudice to the said contention, the learned counsel also

contended that the elections to the Senate are held under the

Constitution. Reliance was placed on various Articles of the

Constitution to show that the Senate elections being under the

Reference No. 1 of 2020 4

Constitution are to be held by secret ballot as per Article 226 of the

Constitution.

Pakistan Muslim League (N)

3.4. The learned counsel for Pakistan Muslim League (N)

contended that, the question whether the election to the Senate

should be by secret ballot or by open ballot is a political question,

which the Court should refrain from answering, as the proper

forum to address this question is the Parliament; that the present

Reference is politically motivated to achieve an outcome, which

could not be achieved by a constitutional amendment due to a

failure of the Federal Government to pass the 26th Constitution

Amendment Bill from the Parliament. Therefore, it was urged that

the present Reference seeks to bypass the Parliament. It was finally

prayed that the present Reference may be returned unanswered.

Article 186 of the Constitution - Advisory Jurisdiction

4. Before I attend to the submissions of the learned Attorney-

General and other learned counsel for the persons that were

allowed audience by the Court, it would be appropriate to first

explain the import and extent of the ‘Advisory Jurisdiction’ vested

in this Court under Article 186 of the Constitution.

5. The constitutional genesis of the ‘Advisory Jurisdiction’ of

this Court originates from Section 213 of Government of India Act,

1935 (“Act of 1935”). It was under the said provision that the

Governor-General of India could send a ‘question of law’ to the

Federal Court of British India for consideration, and that Court,

after such hearing, as it thought fit, had the discretion to report its
Reference No. 1 of 2020 5

opinion thereon to the Governor-General. After independence and

partition of British India, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was

governed in accordance with the Act of 1935 by virtue of Section 8

of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 till promulgation of the

Constitution of Pakistan, 1956 (“Constitution of 1956”). Therefore, the

Federal Court of Pakistan possessed the ‘Advisory Jurisdiction’

under Section 213 of the Act of 1935, and in fact, exercised that

jurisdiction in the year 1955 in a Reference3 made by the then

Governor-General of Pakistan. This Court was established under

Article 148 of the Constitution of 1956, and it then replaced the

Federal Court of Pakistan, as the apex court of the country. By

Article 162 of the Constitution of 1956, this Court was conferred

the same ‘Advisory Jurisdiction’; the only difference was in the

language of the provision, by substituting the words “Governor-

General” and “Federal Court” with “President” and “Supreme

Court”, respectively. Article 59 of the Constitution of Pakistan,

1962 and later Article 187 of the Interim Constitution of Pakistan,

1972 provided for and carried on the ‘Advisory Jurisdiction’ of this

Court. Finally, Article 186 of the present Constitution has retained

the said jurisdiction of this Court, which is reproduced hereunder

for reference:

186. Advisory Jurisdiction

(1) If, at any time, the President considers that it is desirable

to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of
law which he considers of public importance, he may refer the
question to the Supreme Court for consideration.

(2) The Supreme Court shall consider a question so referred

and report its opinion on the question to the President.
(Emphasis added)

3
Opinion of the Federal Court is reported in PLD 1955 FC 435.
Reference No. 1 of 2020 6

A careful reading of Article 186 of the Constitution highlights three

essentials: first, the worthy President has the power to refer a

‘question of law’ to the Supreme Court for consideration and

reporting its opinion thereon; second, the worthy President must

consider the said question to be of ‘public importance’; and lastly,

the Supreme Court is to consider and report its opinion on the

referred ‘question of law’ of ‘public importance’. The authority to

determine, whether a particular ‘question’ is of ‘public importance’

is conferred by the Constitution on the worthy President, but the

determination, as to whether or not the same is a ‘question of law’,

respectfully stated, does not fall within his exclusive domain - but

remains with this Court. And that too, as a jurisdictional fact,

before this Court ventures to render its opinion on the question

referred to it in the Reference. Thus, once the Court finds that the

‘question’ referred to it is a ‘question of law’, only then will this

Court consider the same, and report its opinion thereon to the

President.

6. It is noted that the opinions of this Court as well as of the

Federal Court given in ten References are reported, the particulars

of which are as under:

1. Reference No.1 of 1955 under Section 213 of

Government of India Act, 1935 (PLD 1955 FC 435).
2. Reference No. 1 of 1957 under Article 162 of the 1956
Constitution (PLD 1957 SC 219).
3. Reference No.1 of 1973 under Article 187 of the 1972
Interim Constitution (PLD 1973 SC 563).
4. Reference No. 1 of 1988 under Article 186 of the 1973
Constitution (PLD 1989 SC 75).
5. Reference No. 1 of 1996 under Article 186 of the 1973
Constitution.4

4
It was subsequently withdrawn.
Reference No. 1 of 2020 7

6. Reference No. 2 of 1996 under Article 186 of the 1973

Constitution (PLD 1997 SC 84).
7. Reference No. 2 of 2005 under Article 186 of the 1973
Constitution (PLD 2005 SC 873).
8. Reference No. 1 of 2006 under Article 186 of the 1973
Constitution (2007 SCMR 817).
9. Reference No. 1 of 2011 under Article 186 of the 1973
Constitution.5
10. Reference No. 1 of 2012 under Article 186 of the 1973
Constitution (PLD 2013 SC 279).

In the aforementioned References, this Court had the occasions to

explore the nature and scope of its ‘advisory jurisdiction’, and the

principles, which are relevant for the present Reference, are

described succinctly, as under:

i. Advisory jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked by the

President on the advice of the Cabinet or the Prime
Minister, as per Article 48(1) of the Constitution.6

ii. Advisory jurisdiction of this Court is comprehensive to

cover both the question of law, which has arisen or the
question of law, which is likely to arise in the future.7

iii. Guidance of this Court is sought in advisory jurisdiction

with the object to avoid controversies and to ensure that
Constitutional provisions are fully enforced.8

iv. No one is strictly a party to the Reference and right of

hearing cannot be claimed by anyone as of right in
advisory jurisdiction.9

v. The principles of law laid down by Supreme Court in

adjudicatory jurisdiction cannot be reviewed in advisory
jurisdiction.10

vi. This Court sitting in advisory jurisdiction is not a fact-

finding Tribunal and the Reference has to be answered on
the assumption of facts on which it has been made

5
It is still pending.
6
(PLD 1997 SC 84 (5-MB)
7
(PLD 2005 SC 873 (9-MB).
8
(PLD 2005 SC 873 (9-MB).
9
(PLD 1973 SC 563 (5-MB).
10
(PLD 2013 SC 279 (5-MB).
Reference No. 1 of 2020 8

without entering into a fact-finding enquiry as to their

accuracy.11

vii. Opinion of this Court given in advisory jurisdiction has the

binding effect, when it is formed and delivered after
undertaking an extensive judicial exercise of hearing,
evaluating and appreciating the arguments advanced by
the Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties
summoned by the Court, and is to be esteemed utmost by
all the organs of the State.12

viii. This Court is not bound to answer every question referred to it

for opinion in advisory jurisdiction. The Court may return
the question unanswered for some cogent reasons, like, if
it finds that the question is of a too general character,13
or the question is not suitable to be determined in
advisory jurisdiction,14 or the question has already been
decided by the Court in adjudicatory jurisdiction.15

ix. Questions of law referred for advisory opinion must be cast

in a precise and exact form, and it should not be too
general.16

x. This Court cannot, in advisory jurisdiction, decide the matter

as a lis between the parties, wherein exercise of other
powers are available to the Court including discretionary
powers and pass consequential directions.17

In particular, the last four principles stated above are relevant to

the question referred in the present Reference, and therefore, are

dilated upon in some detail, in seriatim:

11
(PLD 1989 SC 75 (11-MB).
12
(PLD 2005 SC 873 (9-MB).
13
(PLD 1955 FC 435 (5-MB).
14
(PLD 2013 SC 279 (5-MB).
15
(PLD 2013 SC 279 (5-MB).
16
(PLD 1955 FC 435 (5-MB).
17
(PLD 1989 SC 75, per Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J.; approvingly quoted by the majority in PLD 2013 SC 279.
Reference No. 1 of 2020 9

Binding effect of the Opinion

7. An ‘opinion’ recorded by this Court in its ‘Advisory

Jurisdiction’ conferred by Article 186 of the Constitution, is

distinct from the ‘judgment’, ‘decision’ or ‘order’ rendered by this

Court under its ‘adjudicatory jurisdiction’ conferred by Articles

184, 185, 187 and 188 of the Constitution. The distinction is

apparent from the very meaning of the said relevant terms, as the

same have been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary:18

“Advisory Opinion. A formal opinion by judge or judges or a court

or a law officer upon a question of law submitted by a legislative
body or a governmental official, but not actually presented in a
concrete case at law.
Judgment. The official and authentic decision of a court of justice
upon the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action or
suit therein litigated and submitted to its determination.
Decision. A judgment or decree pronounced by a court in
settlement of a controversy submitted to it and by way of
authoritative answer to the questions raised before it.
Order. A mandate, precept; a command or direction authoritatively
given; a rule or regulation.
Adjudication. The giving or pronouncing a judgment or decree in a
cause; also the judgment given.”

Apart from the stark difference in the meaning of the terms, the

distinction between a ‘decision’ of a dispute between the contesting

parties by this Court in its ‘adjudicatory jurisdiction’, and reporting

an ‘opinion’ on a referred question by this Court to the worthy

President in its ‘advisory jurisdiction’ is also accentuated by the

variance in their respective procedures. In ‘adjudicatory’

proceedings, the Court is in substantial control of its proceedings:

leave to amend the pleadings could be given at any stage, new

parties may be added, and names of existing parties may be

deleted; persons against whom no claim is made, but whose rights

18
Black’s Law Dictionary (Revised 4th edn)
Reference No. 1 of 2020 10

might be affected by the decision of the court, may be joined as

proper parties; issues are framed by the court and may be

amended at any time before judgement is delivered; if the

correctness of facts is disputed, evidence must be led to prove the

correct facts; further, an “ex-parte” decision of the court would

bind the parties, if the party served with notice has chosen not to

appear; and the judgment so recorded would operate as res

judicata and equally operates as a binding precedent, if it lays

down a principle of law.19 In contrast, in advisory proceedings of

this Court under Article 186 of the Constitution, it is the President,

and not the Court, who is in substantial control of proceedings:

first, the President is to decide and formulate the ‘question of law’

of ‘public importance’, as he thinks fit for seeking an opinion of the

Court; second, the Court must proceed on the facts, as stated in

the Presidential Reference; and third, the Court must take,

consider and report its opinion on the question referred in the

Reference, as it is referred to it, lacking the legal mandate to

amend the same.

8. It seems, the framers of the Constitution being cognisant of

the intended legal efficacy of an ‘opinion’ of this Court given in its

‘advisory jurisdiction’ did not provide a forum of redressal to any

person aggrieved thereof. This conspicuous omission of providing a

forum of redressal against an ‘opinion’ of this Court rendered in its

‘advisory jurisdiction’ to an aggrieved person, becomes more

distinct, when we note that the Constitution framers expressly

19
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th edn, Volume 3)
Reference No. 1 of 2020 11

provided the remedy of a ‘review’ against a judgment or an order of

this Court passed in its ‘adjudicatory jurisdiction’, but not against

the opinion given in its ‘advisory jurisdiction’, by enacting Article

188 in the Constitution, which is quoted below for ease of

reference:

188. Review of Judgments or Orders by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court shall have power, subject to the provisions of
any Act of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] and of any rules made
by the Supreme Court, to review any judgment pronounced or
any order made by it.

9. The evolution of the judicial approach to the nature and

status of the ‘opinion’ may be traced back to the celebrated

judgment of the Privy Council in AG Ontario v. AG Canada (1912 AC

571), a Reference appeal from the Canadian jurisdiction, wherein it

was held that:

“the answers [to the questions referred to for opinion of the Court]
are only advisory and will have no more effect than the opinions
of the law officers”.

The Federal Court of British India reiterated this view of the Privy

Council in the Reference of Estate Duty Bill (AIR 1944 FC 73), and the

Supreme Court of India in the Reference on the matter of U.P.

Legislative Assembly (AIR 1965 SC 745) and St. Xavier's College Society v.

State of Gujarat (AIR 1974 SC 1389). Similarly, in our jurisdiction, a

five-member Bench of this Court, while deciding two constitution

petitions and answering a Reference together in Al-Jehad Trust v.

Federation (PLD 1997 SC 84), observed that:

“[o]pinion of the Supreme Court [given in advisory jurisdiction

under Article 186 of the Constitution] is just opinion with
explanation on the question of law and is not of binding nature
and it is up to the President or the Federal Government to act
upon it or not.”20

20
Majority view, per Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Fazal Ilahi Khan and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ. agreeing.
Reference No. 1 of 2020 12

Without taking any judicial heed to the above stated principle of

law enunciated by this Court exercising its ‘adjudicatory

jurisdiction’, this Court later in the Hisba Bill Reference (PLD 2005 SC

873), declared the ‘opinion’ of the Court recorded in its ‘advisory

jurisdiction’ to have binding effect. The nine-member bench

unanimously observed:

“It is true that opinion by the Court on the reference by the

President is not a decision between the parties but the Court
undertakes an extensive judicial exercise during which the
arguments advanced by the Advocates appearing on behalf of the
parties summoned by the Court are evaluated and appreciated
and then an opinion is formed, therefore, it has binding
effect… [O]pinion expressed by the Supreme Court in a reference
under Article 186 is required to be esteemed utmost by all the
organs of the State, therefore, it would not be fair to say that the
opinion expressed by the Supreme Court on Presidential
Reference under Article 186 of the Constitution has no binding
effect.” (Emphasis provided)

It appears that this Court, while making the above finding, was

influenced by the view so recorded by Chandrachud, C.J. of the

Indian Supreme Court in Reference of Special Courts Bill (AIR 1979 SC

478) when he, speaking for the majority, observed:

“We are inclined to the view that though it is always open to

this Court to re-examine the question already decided by it
and to over-rule, if necessary, the view earlier taken by it
insofar as all other courts in the territory of India are
concerned, they ought to be bound by the view expressed
by this Court even in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction
under Article 143(1) of the Constitution…….It would be
strange that a decision given by this Court on a question of
law in a dispute between two private parties should be
binding on all courts in this country but the advisory
opinion should bind no one at all even if as in the instant
case, it is given after issuing notice to all interested parties,
after hearing everyone concerned who desired to be heard,
and after a full consideration of the questions raised in the
reference. Almost everything that could possibly be urged in
favour of and against the Bill was urged before us and to
think that our opinion is an exercise in futility is deeply
frustrating.”
Reference No. 1 of 2020 13

We are not to lose sight of the fact that the above finding regarding

the binding nature of the ‘opinion’ recorded by the nine-member

Bench of this Court in Hisba Bill Reference, and by the Indian

Supreme Court in Special Courts Bill Reference, were made by both

the Supreme Courts in the course of exercising its ‘advisory’, not

‘adjudicatory’, jurisdiction. This subtle yet crucial aspect of the

jurisdiction, whereunder the said finding has been recorded gives

rise to a question, whether the very finding can be treated as a

“decision”, deciding a “question of law” or enunciating a “principle

of law”, and thus binding on all other courts in Pakistan, within

the meaning of that expression used in Article 189 of the

Constitution, which provides:

189. Decisions of Supreme Court binding on other Courts.

Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it
decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a
principle of law, be binding on all other courts in Pakistan.

10. Keeping in perspective the above legal position, the finding of

a nine-member bench of this Court in Hisba Bill Reference (PLD 2005

SC 873) declaring the ‘opinion’ recorded by the Court under Article

186 of the Constitution to be binding has, in my earnest view,

disturbed the settled jurisprudential consensus on the status of

‘opinion’ recorded in exercise of its ‘advisory jurisdiction’. Article

186 of the Constitution ordains an answer of the Court to the

‘question of law’ of ‘public importance’ referred to it, as a mere

‘opinion’ not a ‘decision’, yet the effect thereof with the

pronouncement in Hisba Bill Reference (supra) is now held to be

binding.
Reference No. 1 of 2020 14

11. The declaration as to the binding nature of the ‘opinion’

reported by this Court in its ‘advisory jurisdiction’ has created grey

areas in defining its jurisdictional contours. Nonetheless, I myself,

also sitting in a Bench of this Court exercising its ‘advisory

jurisdiction’ do not consider it judicially proper to take up and pass

a finding on the said question, rather find it appropriate to leave

this for an authoritative decision in an appropriate case by this

Court in its ‘adjudicatory’, and not ‘advisory’, jurisdiction.

Discretion to decline answering the question referred

12. The discretion of this Court to answer or decline to answer

the question referred by the worthy President is well established.

Sir Zafrullah Khan J., while on the bench of the Federal Court of

British India that was hearing the Reference of Estate Duty Bill (AIR

1944 FC 73), observed that the questions of law referred for advisory

opinion must be cast in a precise and exact form, and it should not

be left to counsel to supplement the Reference during the course of

the hearing by oral submissions. His lordship, finding the material

supplied in the Reference insufficient, declined to express any

opinion on the questions referred. Following the cue, the Federal

Court of Pakistan, also returned one question unanswered in

Reference No.1 of 1955 (PLD 1955 FC 435)21 with the observation that

the question is too general. In the Bangladesh Reference (1973 PLD SC

563) this Court recognised the autonomy of the Legislature to freely

legislate but reserved its opinion regarding any determination as to

the constitutional validity of the legislative measures, which had

21
Majority opinion, Per Muh am ma d Mun ir, C. J; Akra m an d S. A. Ra ha m an, JJ
a gr eei n g.
Reference No. 1 of 2020 15

yet to be adopted. The Court highlighted that though it chose to

reserve its opinion at this stage, such legislative measures, once

adopted, could be challenged before the Courts on valid grounds.

Similarly, this Court in Reference No. 1 of 2012 (PLD 2013 SC 279) did

not answer one question, considering it unsuitable to be

determined in the advisory jurisdiction, essentially for the reason

that the person whose rights were likely to be affected was not

before the Court. The Indian Supreme Court also returned

Reference No.1 of 1993 (AIR 1995 SC 605) unanswered, considering it

not proper to answer mainly for the reason that it involved a

religious dispute.

Lack of clarity and precision in the question referred

13. Given the judicial inclination to refrain from reporting its

‘opinion’ on a vague question, let us revisit the question referred in

the present Reference, which is reproduced here again for better

understanding of the discussion:

Whether the condition of ‘secret ballot’ referred to in Article

226 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is
applicable only for the elections held ‘under’ the Constitution
such as the election to the office of President of Pakistan, Speaker
and Deputy Speaker of National Assembly, Chairman and Deputy
Chairman of Senate, Speakers and Deputy Speakers of the
Provincial Assemblies and not to other elections such as the
election for the members of the Senate of Pakistan held under the
Elections Act, 2017, enacted pursuant to Article 222 read with
Entry 41, Part 1, Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, which may
be held by way of secret or open ballot, as may be provided for in
the Election Act, 2017?
(Emphasis added)

A careful reading of the above question reveals that it contains

three statements: the first two statements are couched as

instances by the use of expression ‘such as’; and the third

statement adjoined with the second statement of instance by the

use of expression ‘which’. To further clarify the point, and highlight

Reference No. 1 of 2020 16

the ambiguity in the actual question sought to be answered, we

may segregate the three statements from the text of the question

referred to the Court in the Reference. The said three statements

are:

(i) the election to the offices of President of Pakistan,

Speaker and Deputy Speaker of National Assembly,
Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate, Speakers
and Deputy Speakers of the Provincial Assemblies
are held under the Constitution;

(ii) the election for the members of the Senate of

Pakistan falls within the category of elections other
than those held under the Constitution and is held
under the Elections Act, 2017, enacted pursuant to
Article 222 read with Entry 41, Part 1, Fourth
Schedule to the Constitution; and

(iii) the elections that are held under the Elections Act,
2017 may be held by way of secret or open ballot, as
may be provided for in the Election Act, 2017.

With the said statements separated, the actual question that

remains to be answered by the Court is:

Whether the condition of ‘secret ballot’ referred to in Article

226 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is
applicable only for the elections held ‘under’ the
Constitution…and not to other elections…?

Upon a patient reading of the above actual question referred to this

Court, the present Reference does not provide the essential clarity

to be ascertained therefrom. Thus, the referred question fails to

reveal, in what respect, with what object, or to avoid what

controversy, guidance of the Court has been sought in its ‘advisory

jurisdiction’. In fact, it appears to be a general question in

abstract, and requires one to guess the true purport thereof - the

election of Senate. The composite form in which the question

referred to this Court in the Reference, in my opinion, remains a

cause of concern. The articulation of the question could have been

made simpler to avoid ambiguity and vagueness. More than one

Reference No. 1 of 2020 17

questions could have been framed in clear, concise and precise

terms, and referred to for opinion in a single Reference, as there is

no legal compulsion to restrict a Reference to only one question.

No power to dispute or amend the question referred

14. The learned Attorney-General and other learned counsel,

who appeared before this Court in the present Reference have tried

to contextualise the question and focused, in their arguments, on

the procedure of the Senate election. However, the expression,

‘question so referred’, as provided in clause (2) of Article 186 of the

Constitution, makes it clear that this Court cannot change, amend

and rephrase the text of the question referred by the President or

add any further question thereto. The ‘Advisory Jurisdiction’ of this

Court, under Article 186 of the Constitution, is restricted only to

the text of the question referred by the President.

15. There is also another strong reason for the Court not to

amend the ‘question so referred’ by the President. The power of

referring a question to this Court by the President involves the

constitutional process of ‘acting on’ and ‘in accordance’ with the

‘advice’ of the Cabinet or the Prime Minister under the provisions

of Article 48(1) of the Constitution, as earlier explained by this

Court, while answering Reference No. 2 of 1996 and deciding

connected constitution petitions in Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation (PLD

1997 SC 84). The relevant observations22 are reproduced hereunder

for ready reference:

22
Majority view, per Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J., Fazal Ilahi Khan and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ. agreeing.
Reference No. 1 of 2020 18

“19. [I]t is indisputable that advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court can be invoked by the President on the advice of the Prime
Minister…..

20. Article 90 of our 1973 Constitution envisages that the

Executive Authority of the Federation shall vest in the President
and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers
subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. Article
99 provides that all Executive actions of the Federal Government
shall be expressed to be-taken in the name of the President. In
exercise of powers conferred by both these Articles, the Federal
Government has' made Rules of Business of 1973 under Schedule
V-B, Rule 15-A(1), list is made of cases requiring orders of
President on the advice of the Prime Minister. Entry No.54
specifically mentions Reference to the Supreme Court on any
question of law to be filed under Article 186, which is to be done
on the advice of the Prime Minister…..”

This constitutional process of identifying and then referring the

question by the President on advice of the Prime Minister cannot

be circumvented by this Court, by amending or changing, or

adding to, the question referred for its opinion. In Reference No.1 of

1955 (PLD 1955 FC 435), initially two questions were referred to the

Federal Court of Pakistan for consideration and reporting its

opinion but during pendency of the Reference, two more related

questions were also referred to by the Governor-General on the

Court’s suggestion; the Court did not add those questions by itself.

The Indian Supreme Court also held in the Kerala Educational Bill

Reference (AIR 1958 SC 956) that it is for the President to determine,

what question should be referred; the Supreme Court cannot go

beyond the questions referred in the Reference and discuss other

questions.

16. Thus, it can safely be concluded that this Court cannot

change or amend the question referred; it can only be done in

accordance with the same procedure, as prescribed for referring

the question, that is, by the President on advice of the Prime

Minister. This Court can record its ‘opinion’ only on the question,
Reference No. 1 of 2020 19

which is referred, and not on the question, which could have been

but has not been referred.

17. As far as the contention of the learned Attorney-General,

that the referred question, in fact, is: “whether the election for the

members of the Senate is held under the Constitution, or not

under the Constitution but under the law”. I am afraid, that the

said contention is beyond the text of the referred question. At best,

the same can be an interpretation of the question referred, and

that too of the learned Attorney-General, but no more. If the said

interpretation of the learned Attorney-General on the question

referred by the President is to be accepted, then it would amount

to conferring the authority on the Attorney-General to amend the

question referred by the President, which even this Court lacks.

And, secondly, if the learned Attorney-General is correct in his

interpretation of the question referred by the President, then the

question so referred is, in fact, ambiguous and vague, and thus

requires further explanation. In such circumstances, positive

exercise of discretion by this Court to decline recording any

opinion on the question referred in the Reference is warranted.

Directions in advisory jurisdiction

18. It may also be pertinent to mention here that that an

attempt was made to persuade the Court during arguments, to

issue appropriate directions to the Election Commission of

Pakistan to perform its constitutional duty under Article 218(3) of

the Constitution to ensure that the elections are conducted

Reference No. 1 of 2020 20

honestly, justly, fairly and in accordance with law, and that

corrupt practices are guarded against.

19. I am of the considered view that the power of issuing such

directions is not available to this Court, while answering a

‘question of law’ referred to it by the President under Article 186 of

the Constitution. The ‘advisory jurisdiction’ of the Court, under

clause (2) of Article 186 of the Constitution, is restricted to

consider the question referred and report its opinion only on that

question to the President. The ancillary and inherent powers that

the Court has under Article 187(1) of the Constitution to issue

such directions, orders or decrees as may be necessary for doing

‘complete justice’ in any case or matter pending before it, are not

available to the Court while exercising ‘advisory jurisdiction’. This

principle has earlier been emphasised by Muhammad Afzal Zullah,

J. (as he then was) in Reference No. 1 of 1988 (PLD 1989 SC 75), and

approvingly quoted by the majority in Reference No. 1 of 2012 (PLD

2013 SC 279), by observing that this Court cannot, in ‘advisory

jurisdiction’, decide the matter as a lis between the parties,

wherein exercise of other powers are available to the Court

including discretionary powers and taking other consequential

actions.

Political question

20. Finally, I advert to the submissions of the learned counsel

appearing for the major political parties seated on opposition

benches in the Parliament. They all have in unison contended that

the present Reference raises a political question, the determination

Reference No. 1 of 2020 21

whereof be best left to the Parliament. They further submitted that

the present Reference is politically motivated to achieve an

outcome, which could not be attained by the Federal Government

due to its failure to obtain the requisite majority to pass the 26th

Constitution Amendment Bill from the Parliament, therefore, the

present Reference, in essence, seeks to bypass the Parliament. It

was finally urged that the Court should, uphold the ‘trichotomy of

power’ envisaged in the Constitution, and thereby exercise judicial

restraint and return the Reference unanswered.

21. Learned Attorney-General, in rebuttal, by referring to the

observations of this Court made in Ishaq Khakwani v. Nawaz Sharif

(PLD 2015 SC 275) contended that it has been the consistent view of

this Court that if the determination of any question raised before

the Court requires interpretation of any provision of the

Constitution, the Court is obliged to adjudicate upon the same,

notwithstanding that the question raised has some political

overtones. He submitted that this Court has earlier answered the

References that involved political questions, and referred to the

case of Reference No.1 of 1973, Recognising Bangladesh Reference (PLD

1973 SC 563), in support of his submission.

22. I am afraid, the submission of the learned Attorney-General

is not correct and the reliance is not apt. In the Recognising

Bangladesh Reference (supra), opinion of the Supreme Court was

sought on the question:

"Can the Resolution of the purport described in paragraph 6

above [of the Reference], and envisaging such constitutional
measures as may be necessary before the according of formal
Reference No. 1 of 2020 22

recognition [to Bangladesh], be validly adopted by the National

Assembly?"

The Court gave the opinion that:

“there is no legal bar to the National Assembly considering or

adopting a resolution of the purport described in Para. 6 of the
Reference.”

The Court, however, made it clear that it expressed:

“no opinion at this stage as to the constitutionality or the validity

of the measures, legislative or executive, that may have to be
taken before the according of formal recognition…..does
not…mean that the validity of the legislative measures and/or the
Constitutional amendments, if and when made, will not be
amenable to a challenge in the Courts of law upon valid grounds,
if any available.”

The political aspect of the matter, that is, whether Pakistan should

or should not accord recognition to the new State of Bangladesh

was neither considered by the Court nor was any opinion given

thereon. More importantly, no opinion was expressed on the

constitutionality or validity of the legislative measure, which were

to follow the resolution.

23. There is no cavil to the contention of the learned Attorney-

General and his reliance upon the observations of this Court made

in Ishaq Khakwani case (supra) that it has been the consistent view of

this Court that if the determination of any question raised before

the Court requires interpretation of any provision of the

Constitution, the Court is obliged to ‘adjudicate’ upon the same,

notwithstanding that the question raised has some political

overtones. The expression, ‘adjudicate’, used in the referred

observations of this Court, however, makes the distinction. I am

fully convinced and agree with the proposition that this Court

should not decline to adjudicate a case, or to answer a question of

law involving interpretation of some provisions of the law or the

Reference No. 1 of 2020 23

Constitution raised therein, in its ‘adjudicatory jurisdiction’ merely

because the decision of the case or the determination of the

question would have some political repercussions. The Court

cannot abdicate performance of its constitutional duty. The

following observations of this Court made in the case of Nawaz

Sharif v. Federation (PLD 1993 SC 433) may also be cited in this

regard:

The Courts' function is to enforce, preserve, protect and defend

the Constitution. Any action taken, act done or policy framed
which violates the provisions of the Constitution or is not
permissible under the Constitution or law, the Court irrespective
of the fact that it is a political question, must exercise power of
judicial review.

Similarly, this Court in the case of DBA, Rawalpindi v. Federation (PLD

2015 SC 401) held:

A matter pertaining to the Judicial Power of Interpreting the

Constitution, identifying the limits of the Executive and the
Legislature thereunder and enforcing such limits is the sole and
exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts. While exercising such
powers, the Court will not abdicate its jurisdiction merely because
the issue raised, has a political complexion or political
implication.

But the position would be different, when a ‘question of law’ that

has, political implication is referred to this Court for its ‘opinion’,

in its ‘advisory jurisdiction’ under Article 186 of the Constitution.

In this jurisdiction, the Court has the discretion not to answer the

question; the only restraint is that, like all other discretions, the

Court is to exercise this discretion judiciously for valid reasons and

not arbitrarily. The Indian Supreme Court returned Reference No.1

of 1993, Ismail Frauqui v. Union of India (AIR 1995 SC 605), unanswered

with the observation that the Reference favours one religious

community and disfavours another; and the dignity and honour of

the Supreme Court cannot be compromised because of it. Like the

Reference No. 1 of 2020 24

religious disputes, the involvement of the Court in political

disputes in its advisory jurisdiction would also have, in my humble

but considered view, the effect of compromising the dignity and

honour of the apex Court of the country.23

24. In the present Reference, it is not in dispute that: the

question referred has political implications; the Federal

Government earlier, unsuccessfully attempted to resolve it through

a constitutional amendment24; and all major political parties in

opposition want resolution of the question through political and

legislative process in Parliament. In such a clear split between the

ruling political parties and major opposition political parties, and

the charged political atmosphere, the resolution of the question

through intervention of the Court, and that too in its advisory

jurisdiction, would be, in my considered opinion, inappropriate

and, to say the least, would invite untoward criticism on the Court.

25. We must not forget that democracy is never bereft of divide.

The very essence of the political system is to rectify such

disagreements, but to take this key characteristic outside the

realm of our political system and transfer it to the judiciary,

threatens the very core of democratic choice – raison d’etre’ of

democracy. We must also remain cognisant that there will always

be crucial events in the life of a nation, where the political system

may disappoint, but this cannot lead to the conclusion that the

judiciary will provide a better recourse. In fact, the role of the

23
Ismail Frauqui v. Union of India (AIR 1995 SC 605): “158. Ayodhya is a storm that will pass.
The dignity and honour of the Supreme Court cannot be compromised because of it.” Per S.P.
Barucha J.
24
Constitution (twenty-sixth Amendment) Bill 2020
Reference No. 1 of 2020 25

courts ought not be expanded to entrench on other organs of the

state, but must remain to function within the ambit of determining

questions on the basis of legality alone, as otherwise the courts

can pass findings on political issues, without being politically

accountable or responsible to anyone. As a result, careful judicial

treading is needed to ensure that the courts are not indulging in

decision-making to rectify moral wrongs, which in my view should

best be left in the hands of the elected majority25.

Conclusion

26. To sum up the above discussion, till the jurisdictional

contours of the ‘advisory jurisdiction’ of this Court are not settled

and the legal efficacy of the ‘opinion’ remains binding, and that too,

without any judicial check or any clarity in the composition of the

bench of this Court, particularly the numeric strength of the bench

and the seniority of its members that is to hear a Reference in its

‘Advisory Jurisdiction’,26 the standard of determining clarity and

precision in a ‘question of law’ envisaged under Article 186 is

required to be raised to ensure that it is free from political

overtones or undertones - Lest it may expose this Court to

unwitting condemnation of bias and crossing the delicate

boundaries of ‘trichotomy of power’ engrained in the Constitution.

27. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, I conclude

that the question referred in the Reference by the worthy President

is vague, general, lacking the requisite clarity and precision, and

25
Views adopted from “Trials of the State Law and the Decline of Politics” by Jonathan Sumption
26
Article 145(2) of the Indian Constitution expressly sets out the minimum number of judges that
will sit to hear a Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India.
Reference No. 1 of 2020 26

thus does not qualify to be a ‘question of law’ envisaged under

Article 186 of the Constitution. This, in my view, justifies the

exercise of discretion of abstention by this Court from expressing

any ‘opinion’ thereon. I, therefore, respectfully return the question

referred in the Reference unanswered to the worthy President of

Pakistan.

Judge