Detail Judgment by Supreme Court of Pakistan in Dual Nationality Case Against Senators and Mnas

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKI STAN
(Or i gi nal Jur i sdi ct i on)

PRESENT:
MR. JUSTI CE I FTI KHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, HCJ
MR. JUSTI CE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA
MR. JUSTI CE KHI LJI ARI F HUSSAI N

CONSTI TUTI ON PETI TI ON NO.05/ 2012 AND CMA NOS.2382,
2487, 2492, 2876 & 3446/ 2012.
(Under Ar t i cl e 184(3) of t he Const i t ut i on)

Syed Mehmood Akht ar Naqvi Pet i t i oner

VERSUS

Feder at i on of Paki st an t hr .
Secr et ar y Law and ot her s Respondent s

For t he pet i t i oner (s): Pet i t i oner i n per son
(in Const .P.5/ 2012)

For t he appl i cant (s): Mal i k Waheed Anj um, ASC,
In-per son
(in CMA-2382/ 12)
Dr . Tar i q Asad, ASC,
In-per son
(in CMA-2487/ 12)
Ms. Sami r a Bashar at ,
In-per son
(in CMA-2876/ 12)
Mr . M. Shoai b Lodhi
(absent CMA-2492/ 12)

On Cour t Not i ce: Mr . M. Ir fan Qadi r ,
At t or ney Gener al for Paki st an
Assi st ed by
Bar r i st er Shehr yar Ri az Shei kh, Adv.

For t he r espondent s: Mr . Di l Muhammad Khan Al i zai , DAG
(1,2,4,6,8,& 10) Raj a Abdul Ghafoor , AOR
Syed Sher Afghan, D.G. (El ect i ons)

For r espondent No.3: Mr . Qasi m Mi r Jat , Addl . A.G. Si ndh

Const i t ut i on Pet i t i on No. 05 of 2012
-: 2 :-
For r espondent No.5: Mr . Jawwad Hassan, Addl . A.G. PB.

For r espondent No.7: Mr . Azam Khat t ak, Addl .AG Bal ochi st an

For r espondent No.9: Syed Ar shad Hussai n, Addl . A.G. KPK

For Ms. Far ah Naz Isfahani : Mr . Waseem Saj j ad, Sr . ASC
Ch. Akht ar Al i , AOR assi st ed by
Mr . Idr ees Ashr af, Adv.

For Mr . Zahi d Iqbal , MNA: Mi an Abdul Rauf, ASC
& Dr . Ahmad Al i Shah, MPA:

For Mr . A. Rehman Mal i k: Mr . Anwar Mansoor Khan, Sr . ASC
Mr . Muhammad Azhar Ch., ASC
Raj a Abdul Ghafoor , AOR

For Ms. Amna But t ar , MPA Mr . Khawar Mehmood
& Mr . Wasi m Qadi r , MPA Khat t ana, ASC

For Tar i q Mehmood Al oana, Mr . Saeed Yousaf, ASC
MPA

For Ch. Ift i khar Nazi r , MNA Mi an Sul t an Tanvi r , ASC

For Ms. Anusha Rehman, Kh. Har i s Ahmed, Sr . ASC
MNA. Wi t h Ms. Anusha Rehman

For Mr . Sabi r Al i Bal och, Mr . Shah Khawar , ASC
Senat or
Kh. Muhammad Asi f, MNA
i n per son

For Mr . Jami l Ahmed Mal i k, Mr . Imt i az Rashi d Si ddi qui , ASC
MNA. Mr . Mehr Khan Mal i k, AOR

(i n CMA-2382/ 12): Mr . Muhammad Akhl aq, MPA (Pb)
in person
Mr . Far hat Mehmood Khan, MNA
(absent )
Dr . Muhammad Ashr af Chohan, MPA
(absent )
Ms. Nadi a Ghabool , MPA (Si ndh) (absent )
Ch. Khadi m Nadeem, MPA (Pb) (absent )

For Sar dar Shahj ehan Yousaf, Hafi z S. A. Rehman, Sr . ASC
MNA Mr . Mehmood A. Shei kh, AOR wi t h
Sar dar Shahj ehan Yousaf, MNA

-: 3 :-
Dat es of hear i ng: 08
t h
, 10
t h
, 16
t h
, 25
t h
& 30
t h
May,
04
t h
13
t h
, 21
st
& 25
t h
June, 02
nd

03
rd
, 04
t h
& 23
rd
Jul y, 09
t h,
12
t h
,
17
t h
, and 18
t h
Sept ember 2012.

JUDGMENT
KHI LJI ARI F HUSSAI N, J. Thr ough t hi s pet i t i on,
fi l ed under Ar t i cl e 184(3) of t he Const i t ut i on of Isl ami c Republ i c
of Paki st an, 1973 [hereinaf ter referred to as t he Const i t ut i on],
t he pet i t i oner al l eged t hat i n t er ms of Ar t i cl e 63(1)(c) of t he
Const i t ut i on r ead wi t h Sect i on 14 of Paki st an Ci t i zenshi p Act ,
1951, any per son hol di ng dual ci t i zenshi p i s di squal i fi ed fr om
bei ng el ect ed or chosen as, and fr om bei ng, a Member of Maj l i s-
e-Shoor a (Par l i ament ). He st at ed t hat as per onl y TV pr ogr am
ai r ed on Samaa TV Channel , Ch. Zahi d Iqbal , MNA; Ch. Ift i khar
Nazi r , MNA and Mr . A. Rehman Mal i k, Senat or have acqui r ed
ci t i zenshi p of Br i t ai n and as such t hey ar e di squal i fi ed fr om
bei ng Member s of t he Par l i ament . By CMA No.1185 of 2012, he
fur t her di scl osed t hat Ms. Far ah Naz Isfahani , MNA i s al so
hol der of dual ci t i zenshi p of Paki st an and Uni t ed St at es.
2. Accor di ngl y, not i ces wer e i ssued t o t he r espondent s
as wel l as t he l ear ned At t or ney Gener al for Paki st an t o fi l e t hei r
par awi se comment s. In r esponse t o t he not i ce, l ear ned At t or ney
Gener al for Paki st an appear ed and r ai sed t he quest i on as t o
whet her under Art i cl e 63(1)(c) of t he Const i t ut i on a person
shall be disqual ified from being elected or chosen as, and from
being, a member of Majl is-e-Shoora (Parl iament), if he ceases to
be a citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the citizenship of a foreign
-: 4 :-
State . The quest i on r ai sed i s of t he hi ghest publ i c i mpor t ance
and i s r equi r ed t o be deal t wi t h as such.
3. By or der dat ed 27.03.2012, we expr essed our
expect at i ons t hat t he l ear ned At t orney Gener al for Paki st an may
col l ect i nfor mat i on fr om t he Member s of t he Par l i ament about
t hei r dual ci t i zenshi ps, and i f i t i s so whet her di squal i fi cat i on
has been got r emoved or what ever t he posi t i on may be, and t hat
i f t hey desi r e, t hey can al so appear at t hei r own by fi l i ng t hei r
r epl i es al ongwi t h al l i ed document s t o cl ar i fy t hei r posi t i on.
4. In r esponse t o our or der t hat any Member of t he
Par l i ament may appear on hi s own by fi l i ng a r epl y, onl y some
of t he Par l i ament ar i ans came for war d by appear i ng i n per son or
t hr ough counsel .
5. The El ect i on Commi ssi on of Paki st an al so t hr ough
i t s par awi se comment s st at ed t hat t her e i s not hi ng on r ecor d
on t he basi s of whi ch i t coul d be ascer t ai ned whet her any of t he
Par l i ament ar i ans i s hol di ng ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn St at e and
t hat whi l e fi l i ng t he nomi nat i on paper s ever y candi dat e has t o
fi l e cer t ai n decl ar at i on on oat h; one such decl ar at i on i s
r epr oduced her ei n-bel ow:-
I have consented to the above nomination
and that I fulf ill the qual if ications specif ied
in Articl e 62 of the Consti tution and I am not
subj ect to any of the disqual if ication
specif ied in Article 63 of the Consti tuti on or
any other l aw for the ti me being in force for
being el ected as a member of the National
Assembly/ Provincial Assembl y .
-: 5 :-
however , i n t he r ecent el ect i on of t he Senat e t he
decl ar at i on, t hat t he candi dat e has not possess t he
ci t i zenshi p of any for ei gn St at e or Count y has been
t aken
6. On behal f of t he r espondent No.5 Punj ab
Gover nment , obj ect i ons wer e t aken about t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y of
t he pet i t i on, however , r el i ed upon t he pr i nci pl es l ai d down i n
t he case of Umar Ahmad Ghumman versus Government of
Pakist an and ot hers, (PLD 2002 Lahor e 521).
7. `On behal f of t he Gover nment of Khyber
Pakht unkhwa i t i s st at ed t hat accor di ng t o Ar t i cl e 63 of t he
Const i t ut i on a per son shal l be di squal i fi ed fr om bei ng el ect ed or
chosen and fr om bei ng Member of t he Par l i ament i n case as
ci t i zen of Paki st an he has acqui r ed t he ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn
St at e.
8. Mal i k Waheed Anj um, l ear ned ASC, has fi l ed CMA
No.2382 of 2012 for i mpl eadi ng t he fol l owi ng four t een
Par l i ament ar i ans who accor di ng t o hi m ar e hol der s of dual
nat i onal i t y:-
Sr .No. Name Pol i t i cal
Par t y
Nat i onal i t y Dual
1. Muhammad
Akhl aq
PML (N) Paki st ani USA
2. Far hat
Muhammad Khan
MQM Paki st ani USA
3. Tar i q Mehmood
Al l oana
PPPP Paki st ani USA
4. Dr . Muhammad
Ashr af Chouhan
PML(N) Paki st ani GB
5. Dr . Ahmed Al i
Shah
PPPP Paki st ani GB
6. Nadia Gabol MQM Paki st ani GB
7. Amna But t ar PPPP Paki st ani USA
8. Zahi d Iqbal PPPP Paki st ani GB
9. Khawaja Asi f PML(N) Paki st ani Canada
10. Abdul Hafez
Shei kh
PPP Paki st ani USA
11. Anusha Rehman PML(N) Paki st ani Canada
-: 6 :-
12. Sabi r Ali Bal och Dy.
Chai r man
Senat e
Paki st ani --
13. Ch. Waseem
Qadi r
PML(N) Paki st ani Nor way
14. Ch. Nadeem
Khadi m
PML(N) Paki st ani UK

9. Mr . M. Shoai b Lodhi has fi l ed CMA No.2492 of 2012
for i mpl eadi ng of Mr . Jami l Mal i k, MNA, Mr . Jamshed
Rahmat ul l ah, ASC has fi l ed CMA No.2953 of 2012 for
i mpl eadi ng of Mr . Jami l Ashr af, MPA and Mr . Tar i q Asad, ASC
has fi l ed CMA No. 2487 of 2012 al l egi ng t hat Sar dar Shahj ehan
Yousaf, MNA i s hol di ng t he ci t i zenshi p of U.K.
10. Thus member shi p of t he fol l owi ng Par l i ament ar i ans
and member s of Pr ovi nci al Assembl y st and chal l enged i n t he
l i st ed pet i t i on and CMAs not ed above:-
1. Ms. Farah Naz Isf ahani, MNA;
2. Mr. A. Rehman Mal ik, Senator;
3. Ch. Zahid Iqbal , MNA;
4. Ch. Iftikhar Nazir, MNA;
5. Mr. Muhammad Akhl aq, MPA;
6. Mr. Farhat Mehmood Khan, MNA;
7. Mr. Tariq Mehmood All oana, MPA;
8. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf Chohan, MPA;
9. Dr. Ahmed Al i Shah, MPA;
10. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Sheikh, Senator;
11. Ms. Nadi a Gabol, MPA;
12. Ms. Amna Buttar, MPA;
13. Kh. Muhammad Asif, MNA;
14. Ms. Anusha Rehman, MNA;
15. Mr. Sabir Al i Bal och, MNA;
16. Ch. Waseem Qadir, MPA;
17. Ch. Nadeem Khadi m, MPA;
18. Mr. Jameel Ahmed Mal ik, MNA; and
19. Mr. Shahjahan Yousaf, MNA.

-: 7 :-
11. Mr . Wasi m Saj j ad, l ear ned Sr . ASC i n r epl y on behal f
of Ms. Far ah Naz Isfahani , MNA fi l ed CMA No. 2231 of 2012 and
admi t t ed t hat she i s a hol der of ci t i zenshi p of USA, Mr . Khawar
Mehmood Khat ana, ASC why fi l ed CMA No. 2797 of 2012 on
behal f of Ms. Amna But t ar , MPA al so admi t t ed t hat she i s
hol der of ci t i zenshi p of USA and Mi an Abdul Rauf, ASC has fi l ed
C.M.As. No.1975, 2731, 2296, 2597 and 2913 of 2012 on behal f
of Ch. Zahi d Iqbal , MPA, and st at ed t hat he i s per manent
r esi dent of Uni t ed Ki ngdom.
12. Ch. Ift i khar Nazi r , MNA has fi l ed CMA No. 1927 of
2012 and CMA No. 2362 of 2012 and speci fi cal l y deni ed t hat he
ever acqui r ed t he ci t i zenshi p of Uni t ed Ki ngdom.
13. Hafi z S.A. Rehman, l ear ned Sr . ASC has fi l ed CMA
No. 3207 of 2012 on behal f of Sar dar Shahj ahan Yousaf and
speci fi cal l y st at ed t hat he (Sar dar Shahj ahan Yousaf, MNA) i s
not a ci t i zen of any for ei gn St at e.
14. CMA No. 2456 of 2012 fi l ed by Khawaj a Muhammad
Asi f, MNA wher ei n he speci fi cal l y deni ed t hat he i s a hol der of
ci t i zenshi p of any for ei gn St at e, and suppor t ed t he adj udi cat i on
of t he mat t er r el at i ng t o dual nat i onal i t y by t he Member s of t he
Par l i ament .
15. On behal f of Mr . Jameel Ahmed, MNA, Mr . Imt i az
Rashi d Si ddi qui , ASC fi l ed CMA No.2802/ 2012, CMA 2882 of
2012 and CMA 3881 of 2012, wher ei n he st at ed t hat hi s cl i ent
was adopt ed by hi s r eal uncl e i n t he year 1970 and aft er
adopt i on under t he l aw of Net her l and he had acqui r ed
ci t i zenshi p of t he sai d count r y.
-: 8 :-
16. Mr . Wasi m Saj j ad, l ear ned Sr . ASC for Ms. Far ah
Naz Isfahani , MNA ar gued t hat t he Const i t ut i on must be
i nt er pr et ed as a l i vi ng document t o meet t he r equi r ement s of al l
t i mes t o come. It i s cont ended t hat wor d or shoul d be r ead as
and ot her wi se Ar t i cl e 62(1) of t he Const i t ut i on wi l l become
r edundant .
17. In suppor t of hi s cont ent i ons, he r el i ed upon t he
case of Al-Jehad Trust versus Federat ion of Pakist an, (1999
SCMR 1379). It i s cont ended by hi m t hat hi s cl i ent was a bor n
ci t i zen of USA and as such she cannot be di squal i fi ed t o be
el ect ed as a Par l i ament ar i an. He fur t her cont ended t hat t he
r est r i ct i on under Ar t i cl e 63 (1)(c) of t he Const i t ut i on r el at es t o a
ci t i zenshi p of for ei gn St at e acqui r ed by a Member aft er t aki ng
t he oat h of t he Par l i ament . It i s fur t her cont ended by t he
l ear ned counsel t hat once a per son i s el ect ed as a Member of
Par l i ament he can onl y be r emoved by fi l i ng an El ect i on
Pet i t i on.
18. Mi an Abdul Rauf, ASC for Mr . Zahi d Iqbal , MNA
ar gued t hat hi s cl i ent i s not a ci t i zen of U.K but i s a per manent
r esi dent of U.K. and as such he cannot be di squal i fi ed t o r emai n
as a member of t he Par l i ament .
19. Mr . Imt i az Rashi d Si ddi qui , ASC r epr esent i ng Mr .
Jameel Mal i k, MNA whi l e quest i oni ng t he mai nt ai nabi l i t y of t he
pet i t i on, cont ended t hat hi s cl i ent was adopt ed as son by hi s
r eal uncl e i n t he year 1970 when he was mi nor and aft er
adopt i on under t he l aw of Net her l and he had acqui r ed
ci t i zenshi p of t he sai d count r y. Fur t her cont ends t hat si nce hi s
-: 9 :-
cl i ent was adopt ed by hi s r eal uncl e he had acqui r ed ci t i zenshi p
of Net her l and on hi s at t ai ni ng t he age of maj or i t y and t hat t he
Cour t has t o keep di ffer ence bet ween t he per sons who have
i nt ent i onal l y acqui r ed ci t i zenshi p of for ei gn St at es and one who
has not acqui r ed i t i nt ent i onal l y, as i n t he case of r espondent
who had acqui r ed t he ci t i zenshi p bei ng adopt ed son of a
Net her l ands ci t i zen. Fur t her cont ends t hat t her e i s no concept
of ci t i zenshi p i n t he Net her l and. In r epl y t o a quer y, l ear ned
counsel st at ed t hat hi s cl i ent has not r enounced ci t i zenshi p of
Net her l ands t i l l dat e.
20. Lear ned counsel appear i ng on behal f of Mr . Zahi d
Iqbal , MNA, cont ended t hat hi s cl i ent i s not hol di ng ci t i zenshi p
of Br i t ai n, however , he i s a per manent r esi dent of t he sai d
count r y. We have r epeat edl y asked hi m t o pl ace on r ecor d
cer t i fi cat e i ssued by t he compet ent aut hor i t y i n t er ms of Br i t i sh
Nat i onal i t y Act , 1981 t o t he effect t hat he i s not a ci t i zen of UK
but he fai l ed t o do so.
21. Mr . Ahmed Al i Shah, MPA has not di sput ed t hat he
i s hol di ng dual ci t i zenshi p. Mr . Muhammad Akhl aq, MPA has
al so not di sput ed t hat he i s hol di ng dual ci t i zenshi p.
22. Ms. Amna But t ar , MPA al so admi t t ed her ci t i zenshi p
of USA, however , cont ended t hat she cont est ed t he el ect i on
bel i evi ng t hat t her e i s no bar for a dual ci t i zen t o cont est t he
el ect i on as a Par l i ament ar i an. It i s st at ed by her l ear ned
counsel , t hat she wi l l not cont est t he el ect i on now aft er she has
come t o know t hat a per son hol di ng dual ci t i zenshi p i s not
qual i fi ed t o be el ect ed as member of t he Par l i ament .
-: 10 :-
23. Mr . Anwar Mansoor Khan, Sr . ASC appear i ng on
behal f of Mr . A. Rehman Mal i k ar gued t hat he has r enounced
hi s ci t i zenshi p t hr ough hi s sol i ci t or as per l et t er dat ed
27.04.2008 by fi l i ng an appl i cat i on for r enunci at i on on
05.04.2008 and has onl y, t r avel l ed t her eaft er on Paki st ani
passpor t . It i s cont ended by t he l ear ned counsel t hat l aw does
not bar a per son who i s al r eady hol der of ci t i zenshi p for
cont est i ng t he el ect i on of Par l i ament . It i s fur t her cont ended
t hat Art i cl es 62 and 63 of t he Const i t ut i on ar e t o be r ead
t oget her , Ar t i cl e 62 (1)(a) of t he Const i t ut i on r equi r ed
qual i fi cat i on for a member of Par l i ament t o be a ci t i zen of
Paki st an onl y and Ar t i cl e 63(1)(c) of t he Const i t ut i on r el at es t o
t he post el ect i on di squal i fi cat i on and not t o t he pr i or el ect i on
di squal i fi cat i on, i f any. It i s submi t t ed by l ear ned counsel t hat
t hi s Cour t cannot l ook i nt o evi dence whi l e exer ci si ng
j ur i sdi ct i on under Ar t i cl e 184(3) of t he Const i t ut i on. He fur t her
cont ended t hat Mr . A. Rehman Mal i k has r esi gned fr om t he
member shi p of t he Senat e on 9
t h
Jul y 2012, and subsequent
t her et o cont est ed fr esh el ect i on of Senat e as hi s r equest for
r enunci at i on of ci t i zenshi p of U.K. has been conveyed t o hi m by
t he UK Bor der Agency on 29.05.2012 and i f for any r eason for
t he sake of ar gument s i t i s accept ed t hat he was not qual i fi ed t o
cont est el ect i on as Senat or i n t he year 2008, he was qual i fi ed t o
be el ect ed aft er t he accept ance of hi s r equest for r enunci at i on of
hi s ci t i zenshi p of UK i n t he year 2012 as Member of Par l i ament
and as such he was r i ght l y el ect ed as a Senat or .
-: 11 :-
24. Lear ned At t or ney Gener al for Paki st an has ar gued
t hat none of t he r espondent s acqui r ed ci t i zenshi p aft er t hey
became Member s of Par l i ament or a Pr ovi nci al Assembl y.
Accor di ng t o hi m Ar t i cl e 62 of t he Const i t ut i on per t ai ns t o pr e-
el ect i on qual i fi cat i on and Ar t i cl e 63 of t he Const i t ut i on deal s
onl y wi t h post -el ect i on di squal i fi cat i ons. Fur t her cont ended t hat
i f any unt r ue st at ement i s gi ven at t he t i me of submi t t i ng t he
nomi nat i on paper s st at i ng t hat he i s qual i fi ed under Ar t i cl e 62
of t he Const i t ut i on and not di squal i fi ed under Ar t i cl e 63 of t he
Const i t ut i on such st at ement i s not hi ng mor e t han a mi st ake on
t he par t of t he candi dat e. It i s cont ended by t he l ear ned
At t or ney Gener al for Paki st an t hat Ar t i cl es 62 and 63 of t he
Const i t ut i on have t o be r ead t oget her and onl y a
Par l i ament ar i an who has acqui r ed ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn St at e
aft er he was el ect ed and al so ceased t o be a ci t i zen of Paki st an
at t he same t i me becomes di squal i fi ed t o r emai n as a member of
t he Par l i ament and t hat ot her wi se t her e i s no bar for hi m t o
hol d dual ci t i zenshi p. He fur t her cont ended t hat t he wor d or
used i n Ar t i cl e 63 (1) (c) i s t o be r ead as and ot her wi se Ar t i cl e
62 (1) (a) wi l l become r edundant .
25. In r epl y t o a quer y, l ear ned At t or ney Gener al for
Paki st an st at ed t hat at one poi nt of t i me an amendment i n
Ar t i cl e 63 (1)(c) of t he Const i t ut i on for al l owi ng a per son hol di ng
dual ci t i zenshi p t o cont est el ect i on was consi der ed by t he
Gover nment but such bi l l was not pr esent ed befor e t he
Par l i ament . He al so cont ended t hat t her e i s no r est r i ct i on
bar r i ng t op funct i onar i es of t he St at e i .e. Pr esi dent , Chi ef of
-: 12 :-
Ar mey St aff, Gover nor s, Chi ef Just i ces and Judges of t he
super i or Cour t s, Audi t or Gener al fr om hol di ng dual ci t i zenshi p.
Hi s submi ssi on was t hat mer el y because some of t he
Par l i ament ar i an ar e hol di ng dual ci t i zenshi ps t hey cannot be
di squal i fi ed as member of Par l i ament , onl y because t hey have t o
t ake i mpor t ant deci si ons or make pol i cy for t he count r y.
26. We have t aken i nt o consi der at i on r espect i ve
ar gument s advanced by t he l ear ned Counsel and per used t he
r ecor d.
27. In or der t o appr eci at e t he i ssue i nvol ved i n t he
pet i t i on, we woul d l i ke t o r epr oduce her e-i n-bel ow r el evant
par t s of r el evant par t s of Ar t i cl es 62 & 63 (1) (c) of t he
Const i t ut i on as wel l as Sect i on 14 of Paki st an Ci t i zenshi p Act ,
1951:-
62. (1) A person shall not be qual ified to be el ected or chosen
as a member of Majl is-e-Shoora (Parl iament) unl ess:-

(a) he is a citizen of Pakistan:
(b) he is, in the case of the National Assembl y, not l ess
than t wenty-five years of age and is enroll ed as a
voter in any electoral roll in

(c) he is, in the case of the Senate, not less than thirty
years of age and is enroll ed as a voter in any area
in a Province or, as the case may be, the Federal
Capital or the Federal l y Administered Tribal Areas,
from where he seeks membership,
(f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest
and amen, there being no decl aration to the contrary
by a court of l aw; and

63. (1) A person shall be disqual ified from being
elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of
the Majl is-e-Shoora (Parl iament), if
-: 13 :-
(c) he ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or
acquires the citizenship of a foreign State; or

For t he sake of conveni ence Sect i on 14 of Paki st an
Ci t i zenshi p Act , 1951 i s al so r epr oduced her ei n-bel ow.
14. Dual ci t i zenshi p or Nat i onal i t y not
permi t t ed.(1) Subject to the provisions of this
section if any person is a citizen of Pakistan
under the provisions of this Act, and is at the
same time a citizen or national of any other
country, he shall , unl ess he makes a decl aration
according to the l aws of that other country
renouncing his status as citizen or national
thereof, cease to be a citizen of Pakistan.
28. To appr eci at e r espect i ve cont ent i ons r ai sed by t he
l ear ned ASC, i t i s necessar y t o r ecapi t ul at e basi c pr i nci pl es of
Int er pr et at i on of St at ut es.
29. It i s a car di nal pr i nci pl e of const r uct i on t hat t he
wor ds of a st at ut e ar e fi r st under st ood i n t hei r nat ur al , or di nar y
or popul ar sense and phr ases and sent ences ar e const r ued
accor di ng t o t hei r gr ammat i cal meani ng unl ess t hat l eads t o
some absur di t y or unl ess t her e i s somet hi ng i n t he cont ext or i n
t he obj ect of t he st at ut e t o suggest t he cont r ar y by necessar y
i mpl i cat i on. The i nt ent i on of t he Legi sl at or i s pr i mar i l y t o be
gat her ed fr om t he l anguage used, whi ch means t hat at t ent i on
shoul d be pai d t o what has been sai d and al so t o what has not
been sai d. As a consequence a const r uct i on whi ch r equi r es for
i t s suppor t , addi t i on or subst i t ut i on of wor ds or whi ch r esul t s
i n r ej ect i on of wor ds as meani ngl ess has t o be avoi ded. The
cour t s al ways pr esume t hat t he Legi sl at ur e i nser t ed ever y par t
-: 14 :-
t her eof for a pur pose and t he l egi sl at i ve i nt ent i on i s t hat ever y
par t of st at ut e shoul d have effect . The Cour t has t o di scover
t r ue l egi sl at i ve i nt ent whi l e i nt er pr et i ng st at ut es.
30. It was hel d i n t he case of Tat a Consult ancy
Services versus St at e of Andhra Pradesh, (AIR 2005 SC 371),
t hat l i t er al const r uct i on not t o be deni ed onl y because t he same
may l ead t o penal t y. It i s not t he dut y of Cour t t o ei t her enl ar ge
scope of l egi sl at i on or t he i nt ent i on of t he Legi sl at or s when t he
l anguage of t he pr ovi si on i s cl ear . Whi l e const r ui ng t he
pr ovi si ons of st at ut es no pr ovi si on shoul d be r ender ed
meani ngl ess and t her e i s no scope of pl aci ng unnat ur al
i nt er pr et at i on on t he meani ng of l anguage used by t he
l egi sl at or s.
31. In The Interpretation and Appl ication of Statutes,
Reed Dickerson, at page 135 di scussed t he subj ect whi l e deal i ng
wi t h t he i mpor t ance of cont ext of t he st at ut e i n t he fol l owi ng
t er ms:-
..The essence of the l anguage is to
refl ect, express, and perhaps even affect
the conceptual matrix of establ ished ideas
and val ues that i dentifies the cul ture to
which it bel ongs. For this reason, l anguage
has been call ed conceptual map of human
experience .

32. In t he case of Reserve Bank of I ndia versus.
Peerless General Finance and I nvest ment Co. Lt d., (AIR
1987 SC 1023), Supr eme Cour t of Indi a hel d t hat :-
.If a statues is l ooked at, in the context of its
enactment, with the gl asses of the statute-maker,
-: 15 :-
provided by such context, its scheme, the sections,
cl auses, phrases and words may take col our and
appear different than when the stature is l ooked at
wi thout the gl asses provided by the context. With
these gl asses we must l ook at the Act as a whol e
and discover what each section, each cl ause, each
phrase and each word is meant and designed to say
as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. .
33. To i nt er pr et t he funct i ons t he Cour t i s t o di scover
t he t r ue l egi sl at i ve i nt ent . To i nt er pr et t he st at ut e t he Cour t
must i f t he wor ds ar e cl ear , pl ai n, unambi guous and onl y one
meani ng gi ven t o t he wor d, effect i s gi ven t o each and ever y
wor d used by t he l egi sl at or s. The Cour t al ways pr esumes t hat
t he l egi sl at or s i nser t ed ever y par t t her eof for a pur pose and
l egi sl at i ve i nt ent i n t hat ver y par t of st at ut e shoul d have effect .
The const r uct i on whi ch at t r i but es r edundancy t o t he l egisl at or s
wi l l not be accept ed except for compel l i ng r easons, such as,
obvi ous dr aft i ng er r or . In ot her wor ds, a const r uct i on whi ch
r equi r es for i t s suppor t , addi t i on or subst i t ut i on of wor ds or i n
r ej ect i ng wor ds as meani ngl ess i s t o be avoi ded. Pr i mar y and
for emost t ask of a Cour t t o i nt er pr et t he st at ut e i s t o ascer t ai n
i nt ent i on of t he l egi sl at or s act ual or i mput ed. Havi ng
ascer t ai ned t he i nt ent i on, t he Cour t must t hen st r ive t o
i nt er pr et t he st at ut e as t o pr omot e/ advance t he obj ect and
pur pose of t he enact ment . For t hi s pur pose, wher e necessar y
t he Cour t may even depar t fr om t he r ul e t hat pl ai n wor ds
shoul d be i nt er pr et ed accor di ng t o t hei r pl ai n meani ng. Whi l e
i nt er pr et i ng t he pr ovi si ons of st at ut e, Cour t shoul d not consi der
r edundancy or sur pl us wor d or wor ds.
-: 16 :-
Can t he word or used in Art icle 63 (1) (c) be read as and.
34. Keepi ng i n vi ew t hese basi c pr i nci pl es of
i nt er pr et at i on of St at ue/ Const i t ut i on, we wi l l now exami ne
Ar t i cl es 62 and 63 (1)(c) of t he Const i t ut i on, 1973 t o ascer t ai n i f
a per son hol di ng ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn St at e i s di squal i fi ed t o
be el ect ed or chosen as and fr om bei ng, a Member of t he
Par l i ament or not .
35. The i ssue befor e t he Cour t i s not whet her a ci t i zen of
Paki st an hol di ng ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn St at e i s l oyal t o our
count r y or not but what appear s t hat t he fr amer s of
Const i t ut i on, i n t hei r wi sdom deci ded t hat such per son shoul d
be di squal i fi ed t o be el ect ed as member of Par l i ament , whi ch i s
t he onl y body t o Legi sl at e for t he ci t i zens of t hi s count r y, t o
check Execut i ve, t o gi ve gui del i ne for pol i ci es of t he Gover nment
i ncl udi ng defence, for ei gn, fi nance, et c. et c. In t he case of
I ft ikhar Ahmad Khan Bar versus Chief Elect ion
Commi ssi oner I slamabad and ot hers, (PLD 2010 SC 817), i t
was hel d t hat :-
The Parl iament of any country is one of its noblest,
honourabl e and important institutions making not onl y
the policies and the l aws for the nation but in fact
shaping and carving its very destiny.

36. The Const i t ut i on was fr amed by i t s maker s keepi ng
i n vi ew t he si t uat i ons and condi t i ons pr evai l i ng at t he t i me of i t s
maki ng; but bei ng a per manent document , i t has been
concei ved i n a manner so as t o appl y t o si t uat i ons and
condi t i ons whi ch mi ght ar i se i n fut ur e. The wor ds and
-: 17 :-
expr essi ons used i n t he Const i t ut i on, i n t hat sense, have no
fi xed meani ng and must r ecei ve i nt er pr et at i on based on t he
exper i ence of t he peopl e i n t he cour se of wor ki ng of t he
Const i t ut i on.
37. The wor d or i s nor mal l y di sj unct i ve and and i s
nor mal l y conj unct i ve, i f any case l aw i s r equir ed, r efer ence can
be made t o t he cases of M/ s. Hyderabad Asbest os Cement
Product s versus Union of I ndia, (AIR 2000 SC 314), and
Abdul Razak versus Karachi Bui lding Cont rol Aut horit y,
(PLD 1994 SC 512), but at t he t i me t hey ar e r ead as vi ce ver sa
t o gi ve effect t o t he mani fest i nt ent i on of t he Legi sl at ur e as
di scl osed fr om t he cont ext .
38. In t he case of Green v. Premi er Glynrhonwy Slat e
Company, Limit ed, (1928) 1 KB 561, P. 568, i t was hel d by
SCRUTTON, LJ, t hat you do somet i mes r ead or as and i n a
st at ut e. But you do not do i t unl ess you ar e obl i ged because or
does not gener al l y mean and and and does not gener al l y mean
or .
39. As poi nt ed out by LORD HALSBURY t he r eadi ng of
or as and i s not t o be r esor t ed t o, unl ess some ot her par t of
t he same st at ut e or t he cl ear i nt ent i on of i t r equi r es t hat t o be
done (Mer sey Docks and Har bour Boar d vs. Hender son Br os.
(58 LJ QB 152 (HL)).
40. In t he Words and Phrases Permanent Edit ion 7A,
t he wor d comma has been defi ned as under :-
A comma is a point used to mark the
smal l est structural divisions of sentence, or a
-: 18 :-
rhetorical punctuation mark indicating the
slightest possible separation in ideas or
construction.

41. It i s i nt er est i ng t o ment i on t hat Ar t i cl e 103(d) of t he
Const i t ut i on of 1962, i s si mi l ar t o Ar t i cl e 63(1)(c) of t he
Const i t ut i on of 1973. However i n Ar t icl e 103 (d) aft er t he wor d
ceased t o ci t i zen and befor e wor d or t he const i t ut i onal
fr amer not i nser t ed comma (,) as i nser t ed i n 1973
Const i t ut i on, whi ch fur t her suppor t vi ew, whi ch we have t aken
t hat or used i n Ar t i cl e 63(1)(c) can not be r ead as and.
42. We have car eful l y scanned Ar t i cl e 63 of t he
Const i t ut i on and fr om a bar e per usal of i t , i t appear s t hat t he
Legi sl at ur e befor e t he wor d or put a comma whi ch mani fest s
t he i nt ent i on of Legi sl at ur e t hat ceases t o be a ci t i zen of
Paki st an t o be r ead separ at el y fr om hol di ng of ci t i zenshi p of
for ei gn St at e and wor d or cannot be r ead as and .
Does Art icle 63 (1) (c) relat e t o post elect ion disqualifi cat i on
only.
43. If we compar e Ar t i cl e 63 (1) wi t h Ar t icl e 63(A) of t he
Const i t ut i on i nser t ed by 18
t h
Amendment , t he i nt ent i on of t he
Legi sl at ur e becomes cl ear t hat Ar t i cl e 63 (1) of t he Const i t ut i on
appl i ed t o pr e and post el ect i on di squal i fi cat i on, wher eas Ar t i cl e
63(A) appl i es t o post el ect i on di squal i fi cat i on on t he gr ound of
defect i on.
44. Ar t i cl e 63 deal s wi t h A per son di squal i fi ed fr om
bei ng el ect ed or chosen as and fr om bei ng, a member of t he
-: 19 :-
Majl is-e-shoora, wher eas, Ar t i cl e 63(A) deal s wi t h t he
di squal i fi cat i on of a Member of t he Par l i ament .
45. The Legi sl at ur e i nt ent i onal l y has not used t he wor d
Member of t he Par l i ament i n Art i cl e 63 t o be di squal i fi ed i f he
acqui r es ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn St at e. In t er ms of Ar t i cl e 63(1),
a per son who hol ds dual ci t i zenshi p but wi shes t o be el ect ed
or chosen t o become Par l i ament ar i an has t o r enounce
ci t i zenshi p of for ei gn St at e fi r st , ot her wi se he woul d be
di squal i fi ed t o be el ect ed, i f at t he t i me of submi t t i ng hi s/ her
nomi nat i on paper , he/ she was hol di ng ci t i zenshi p of for ei gn
St at e. Li kewi se i f any member of t he Par l i ament acqui r es
ci t i zenshi p of for ei gn St at e, he wi ll become di squal i fi ed t o
r emai n member of t he Par l i ament .
46. As r egar ds t he cont ent i on of l ear ned counsel for t he
r espondent s t hat Ar t i cl e 63 of t he Const i t ut i on, i s r el at ed t o pr e
and post el ect i on di squal i fi cat i on t he same has no for ce. On
pl ai n r eadi ng of t he sai d Ar t i cl e, t he Legi sl at ur e has used t he
wor d a per son whi ch demonst r at es t he i nt ent i on t hat any
per son whet her he i s Member of t he Majl is-e-Shoora shal l be
di squal i fi ed i f any one of t he di squal i fi cat i ons ment i oned i n t he
sai d Ar t i cl e appl i cabl e upon hi m. The Ar t i cl e fur t her pr ovi des
t hat t he per son shal l be di squal i fi ed fr om bei ng el ect ed or
chosen r el at es t o pr e post el ect i on di squal i fi cat i on wher eas
fr om bei ng a Member of Maj l is-e-Shoora r el at es t o post
el ect i on di squal i fi cat i on. The Ar t i cl e 63 of t he Const i t ut i on has
deal t wi t h bot h i .e. pr e and post el ect i on di squal i fi cat i on.
-: 20 :-
47. The gener al pr i nci pl e of Int er pr et at i on of St at ues i s
equal l y appl i cabl e whi l e i nt er pr et i ng any pr ovi si on of t he
Const i t ut i on. However , whi l e i nt er pret i ng a pr ovi si on of t he
Const i t ut i on gr eat caut i on has t o be t aken by t he Cour t , as t he
Const i t ut i on i s an i nst r ument i .e. t he supr eme l aw whi ch
cr eat es t he Legi sl at ur e i t sel f, makes or di nar y st at ut es wi t h
r espect t o whi ch canons of st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on have been
for mul at ed by t he Cour t s. The t ask of expoundi ng a
Const i t ut i on i s cr uci al l y di ffer ent fr om t hat of const r ui ng a
st at ut e. The St at ut e can easi l y be enact ed and r epeal ed by
si mpl e maj or i t y of Member s of Par l i ament wher eas, any
pr ovi si on of t he Const i t ut i on can be amended onl y by 2/ 3
rd

maj or i t y of bot h t he Houses.
48. In t he case of Muhammad Yasin versus Federat i on
of Pakist an, (PLD 2012 SC 132), i t was hel d t hat meaning of
the Consti tution is to be aggregated from the Consti tution as
interpreted in the rule based on reason.

49. It i s not out of pl ace t o r epr oduce t he oat h r equi r ed
t o be t aken at t he t i me of acqui r i ng ci t i zenshi p of Br i t ai n and
Uni t ed St at es r espect i vel y.

I wi l l give my l oyal t y t o t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom and
r espect i t s r i ght s and fr eedoms. I wi ll uphol d i t s
democr at i c val ues. I wi l l obser ve i t s l aws fai t hful l y
and fulfi l l my dut i es and obl igat i ons as a Br i t i sh
ci t i zen.
UNI TED STATES
I her eby decl ar e, on oat h, t hat I absol ut el y and
ent i r el y r enounce and abj ur e al l al legiance and
fi del i t y t o any for ei gn pr i nce, pot ent at e, st at e, or
-: 21 :-
sover ei gnt y, of whom or whi ch I have heret ofor e
been a subj ect or ci t i zen; t hat I wi l l suppor t and
defend t he Const i t ut i on and l aws of t he Uni t ed
St at es of Amer i ca agai nst al l enemi es, for eign and
domest i c; t hat I wi l l bear t r ue fai t h and al l egi ance
t o t he same; t hat I wi l l bear ar ms on behal f of t he
Uni t ed St at es when r equi r ed by t he l aw; t hat I wi l l
per for m noncombat ant ser vi ce i n t he Ar med For ces
of t he Uni t ed St at es when r equi r ed by t he l aw; t hat
I wil l per for m work of nat i onal i mpor t ance under
ci vi l ian di r ect ion when r equi r ed by t he l aw; and
t hat I t ake t hi s obl igat i on fr eel y, wi t hout any
ment al r eser vat i on or pur pose of evasion; so hel p
me God.

50. We have al so not ed t hat Member s of t he Nat i onal
Assembl y have t aken oat h under Ar t i cl e 65 of t he Const i t ut i on,
wher eby t hey have under t aken t hat t hey wi l l per for m t hei r
funct i ons honest l y al ways i n t he i nt er est of t he sover ei gnt y,
i nt egr i t y, sol i dar i t y, wel l -bei ng and pr osper i t y of Paki st an and
wi l l pr eser ve, pr ot ect and defend t he Const i t ut i on, wher eas on
t he ot her hand, at t he t i me of acqui r i ng ci t i zenshi p of Uni t ed
St at es of Amer i ca t hey have t aken oat h t hat t hey wi l l bear t r ue
fai t h and al l egi ance t o t he US Const i t ut i on and wi l l bear ar ms
on behal f of t he Uni t ed St at es when r equi r ed by t he l aw, et c.
51. The i ssue, whet her a per son hol di ng ci t i zenshi p of a
for ei gn st at e i s qual i fi ed t o cont est t he el ect i on or not , had come
for consi der at i on befor e t he Lahor e Hi gh Cour t , i n t he case of
Umar Ahmad Ghumman versus Government of Paki st an and
ot hers, (PLD 2002 Lahor e 521), wher ei n a l ear ned Judge of t hi s
Cour t , Honbl e Mr . Just i ce Tassaduq Hussai n Ji l l ani , as a
Judge of t he Lahor e Hi gh Cour t , hel d t hat :-
-: 22 :-
38. The contention of the petitioners l earned counsel
was that the petitioner is qual ified to contest the
general election for the membership of the Parliament in
terms of Articl e 62 of the Constitution which pertains to
qual ifications for a member of the Parl iament.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in
absence of any bar for a dual national prescribed in
Articl e 62 of the Constitution, petitioner is qual ified to
contest the el ections and that the disqual ification
enumerated in Articl e 63(1) (c) of the Constitution comes
into force onl y when a person has been el ected as
Member of the Parl iament.
39. The above interpretation of the Constitutional
provisions is a rather over simpl ification and woul d
l ead to anomal ous resul ts. Articl e 63(1) (c) of the
Constitution expl icitl y mandates that a person shall be
disqual ified from being el ected or chosen as, and from
being, a member of the Majl is-e-Shoora (Parl iament), if
he ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the
citizenship of a foreign State . Thus the disqual ification
comes into pl ay the moment a person becomes a
candidate or seeks el ection. This Court has decl ared
petitioner to be a ci tizen of Pakistan but every citizen of
a State is not al l owed to contest the el ection. The
qual ifications and disqual ifications have been
enumerated in the Constitution and by the law of the
l and. Since the petitioner has admi ttedl y acquired
citizenship of a foreign country, he is hit by the afore-
referred provision and cannot contest el ections unless,
of course, he removes this disqual ification in terms of
rule 19 of the Pakistan Citizenship Rul es, 1952.

Now we wi l l deal wi t h t he mat t er rel at ed t o respondent s.

52. Ms. Far ah Naz Isfahani , MNA; Ch. Zahi d Iqbal ,
MNA; Ms. Nadi a Gabol , MPA; Ms. Amna But t ar , MPA and Mr .
Jameel Ahmed Mal i k, MNA and Dr . Ahmed Al i Shah, MPA have
not deni ed t hat at t he t i me when t hey submi t t ed t hei r
nomi nat i on paper s, t hey wer e hol di ng ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn
-: 23 :-
st at e, made st at ement on oat h t hat t hey ar e qual i fi ed under
Ar t i cl e 62 (1) of t he Const i t ut i on as wel l as not di squal i fi ed
under Ar t i cl e 63 (1) of t he Const i t ut i on, appar ent l y knowi ng
wel l t hat a per son hol di ng ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn sat e i s
di squal i fi ed fr om bei ng el ect ed or chosen as a member of t he
Maj l i s-e-Shoor a (Par l i ament ). They appar ent l y made a fal se
st at ement .
53. As r egar ds Mr . Zahi d Iqbal , MNA, vi de or der dat ed
18-3-2012, l ear ned ASC appear i ng for Mr . Zahi d Iqbal , MNA
was di r ect ed t o fi l e evi dence/ document s/ cer t i fi cat e i ssued by
t he compet ent aut hor i t y i n t er ms of Br i t i sh Nat i onal i t y Act ,
1981 t o t he effect t hat he i s not a ci t i zen of UK but he fai l ed t o
do so t i l l dat e despi t e gi vi ng t i me, t hus we have no opt i on but t o
bel i eve t hat Mr . Zahi d Iqbal , MNA, i s hol di ng ci t i zenshi p of
Uni t ed Ki ngdom, havi ng Passpor t No. 300997046 of Br i t ai n.
54. In CMA No. 2382 of 2012 fi l ed by Mal i k Waheed
Anj um, ASC The Lear ned Counsel cat egor i cal l y st at ed t hat Mr .
Far hat Mehmood Khan, MNA i s hol der of USA Passpor t No.
470939019, Dr . Muhammad Ashr af Chouhan, MPA i s hol der of
Br i t i sh Passpor t No.202052945, Nadi a Gabol , MPA i s hol der of
Br i t i sh Passpor t No.706860392. These Member s of t he
Par l i ament have not di sput ed t he quest i on of hol di ng dual
ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn St at e despi t e ser vi ce, t her efor e, we have
no opt i on but t o hol d t hat at t he t i me of submi t t i ng of t hei r
nomi nat i on paper s t hey wer e di squal i fi ed and i nel i gi bl e t o fi l e
t he same and appar ent l y have made fal se st at ement s whi l e
submi t t i ng t hei r nomi nat i on paper s.
-: 24 :-
55. Mr . Jami l Ahmad Mal i k, MNA, has not deni ed t hat
he i s a hol der of ci t i zenshi p of Net her l and, however , st at ed t hat
he has acqui r ed ci t i zenshi p aft er at t ai ni ng t he age of maj or i t y
as he was adopt ed by hi s uncl e when he was mi nor who was
ci t i zen of Net her l and.
56. Ar t i cl e 102 of t he Indi an Const i t ut i on, di squal i fi ed a
per son i f he vol unt ar i l y acqui r ed ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn St at e
wher eas Ar t i cl e 63 (1) (c) of t he Const i t ut i on has speci fi ed
di squal i fi cat i on i f any per son who whet her vol unt ar i l y or not ,
acqui r ed ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn St at e fr om bei ng member of
Par l i ament . The cont ent i on of l ear ned ASC t hat hi s cl i ent has
not acqui r ed ci t i zenshi p vol unt ar i l y and cannot be di squal i fi ed,
t hus has no for ce.
57. As r egar ds Ch. Waseem Qadi r , MPA t hough l ear ned
counsel has appear ed on hi s behal f and on one dat e of hear i ng
he has al so appear ed i n per son and handed over Paki st ani
Passpor t t o Cour t Associ at e but t i l l dat e no CMA has been fi l ed
denyi ng t he al l egat i on t hat he i s not hol der of ci t i zenshi p of any
for ei gn St at e.
58. Ch. Nadeem Khadi m, MPA has al so not fi l ed any
CMA t o di sput e t hat he i s not a holder of ci t i zenshi p of any
for ei gn St at e.
59. As r egar ds Mr . Sabi r Al i Bal och, Senat or , Mal i k
Waheed Anj um, l ear ned ASC, has fi l ed CMA No.2382 of 2012
wher ei n he has al l eged t hat he (Mr . Sabi r Al i Bal och, Senat or ) i s
a hol der of dual ci t i zenshi p but he has not ment i oned t he name
of t he St at e of whi ch he i s hol di ng ci t i zenshi p and no mat er i al
-: 25 :-
i n suppor t of hi s cont ent i on has been pr oduced, t hus r equest t o
t he ext ent of Mr . Sabi r Al i Bal och, Senat or t o decl ar e hi m
di squal i fi ed bei ng hol der of dual ci t i zenshi p, i s decl i ned.
60. Ms. Anusha Rehman, MNA i n r epl y has st at ed t hat
she i s a ci t i zen of t he Isl ami c Republ i c of Paki st an by bi r t h and
t hi s i s t he onl y ci t i zenshi p/ nat i onal i t y whi ch she has hel d, and
st i l l hol ds and t hat she bel ongs t o one of t he ol dest fami l i es
hai l i ng fr om Lahor e, Mr . Waheed Anj um, pet i t i oner al so
wi t hdr ew hi s al l egat i on agai nst Ms. Anusha Rehman t hus t o
her ext ent t he pr oceedi ng i s al so dr opped.
61. The pr oceedi ngs agai nst Sar dar Shahj ehan Yousaf,
MNA and Ch. Ift i khar Nazi r , MNA ar e al so dr opped, as l ear ned
counsel does not pr ess hi s al l egat i ons of hol di ng dual
ci t i zenshi p, and t ender s apol ogy.
62. Khawaj a Muhammad Asi f, MNA has appear ed and
cat egor i cal l y quest i oned t he al l egat i on l evel ed agai nst hi m.
Lear ned ASC dr opped t he al l egat i on l evel ed agai nst hi m. He has
al so dr opped al l egat i on agai nst Abdul Hafez Shei kh, Senat or
t hat he i s hol der of dual nat i onal i t y.
63. As far as t he mat t er r el at i ng t o Mr . Tar i q Mehmood
Al l oana, MPA i s concer ned, ser i ous al l egat i ons wer e l evel ed
agai nst hi m. In suppor t of hi s cont ent i ons Mal i k Waheed
Anj um l ear ned ASC has pl aced on r ecor d l et t er No.
FIA/ IBMS/ Supr eme Cour t / Qur ey/ 1521 wher ei n i t was
affi r med t hat on t he basi s of par t i cul ar s ment i oned, t he cl osest
t r avel hi st or y of t he per son has been found i n t he syst em and
-: 26 :-
R-11 For m. It i s al l eged t hat he was a US Nat i onal and al so t hat
he t r avel l ed on t he US passpor t .
64. On our di r ect i on, Mr . Muhammad Azam Khan,
Di r ect or (Law), FIA submi t t ed a r epor t , cont ent s wher eof ar e
r epr oduced her ei n-bel ow:-
1. That Mal ik Waheed Anjum l earned ASC submitted
an appl ication to DG, FIA for the provision of travel
history of Tariq Mehmood son of Lal Khan passport
No.211267712. in this appl ication the foll owing
two Pakistani passports Nos. al l egedl y bel onging
to Tariq Mehmood were al so mentioned for the
said purpose.
a. CW151051
b. CW0151052
2. That on search of PISCES/ IBMS database it
transpired that one Tariq Mehmood hol ding
passport No.211267712 l anded at Isl amabad
ai rport by PK-718 on 14.2.2006 and departed
back on 28.2.2006 by PK-717 from Karachi
ai rport.
3. The said Tariq Mehmood hol der of American
Passport No. 211267712 again entered in
Pakistan on 19.07.2008 by PK-718 l anded at
Isl amabad airport and from the same airport, he
l eft the country on 01.08.2008 by PK-715. R11-
travel history IBMS data form is attached. (Annex-
A).
4. Regarding two Pakistani passports
No.CWD0151051 and CW0151052, there is
nothing avail abl e in Database System about entry
or exit of any person on the basis of these
passports.
5. On further anal ysis of the system it transpired that
on both the occasions when Mr. Tariq Mehmood
Alloana arrived at Isl amabad airport, he presented
his National Identify Card Overseas Pakistanis
(NICOP).
-: 27 :-
6. On NADRA database verification of NICOP No.
37201-1113961-7 (Annex. B) the foll owing
information has been produced:-
i. Name Tariq Mehmood
ii. Fathers name Lal Khan
iii. Date of Birth 15.05.1960
iv. Country of Stay USA
v. Present Address: 1099 Coney, Isl and
Ave. Brookl yn, New Your, 11230
United States.
vi. Permanent Address: House No. Bviii-218 Street
No.4 Mohall ah Sarpak Chakwal , District Chakwal ,
Pakistan.

Report is submitted, pl ease.
On behalf of Director General
Sd/ -
Muhammad Azam Khan
Director/ Law
03.07.2012.

65. We have hear d Mr . Khawar Mahmood Khat t ana,
ASC and Mr . Mal i k Waheed Anj um, ASC i n det ai l and vi de
or der dat ed 04.07.2012, t he Addi t i onal Regi st r ar of t hi s Cour t
was di r ect ed t o l odge a cr i mi nal compl ai nt agai nst t he DG, FIA,
t he Deput y Di r ect or who si gned and fur ni shed t he i ncor r ect
i nfor mat i on/ document s and al l ot her per sons i nvol ved, on t he
st r engt h of t hi s or der and annexur e her eof. The I.G. Pol i ce,
Isl amabad was al so di r ect ed t o super vi se t he i nvest i gat i on of
t he case hi msel f and t o submi t a r epor t t o t he Regi st r ar of t hi s
Cour t on weekl y basi s for our per usal i n Chamber .
66. Mal i k Waheed Anj um, ASC who fi l ed CMA No.
No.2382 of 2012 al l egi ng t hat Khawaj a Muhammad Asi f, MNA,
Mr . Abdul Hafeez Shei kh, Senat or , Ms. Anusha Rehman, MNA.
-: 28 :-
Ch. Ift i khar Nazi r , MNA, Mr . Sabi r Al i Bal och, MNA and Mr .M.
Tar i q Asad, ASC have fi l ed CMA No. 2487 of 2012 pr ayi ng t hat
Sar dar Shahj ehan Yousaf, MNA i s hol di ng t he ci t i zenshi p of
UK, t ender ed t hei r apol ogy t o t hese Par l i ament ar i ans and
r egr et t ed for t he i nconveni ence caused t o t hem. We i n vi ew of
t he accept ance of t he apol ogy by t he l ear ned
counsel / r espondent s, ar e not i mposi ng cost for fi l i ng
appl i cat i on agai nst t hem wi t hout any mat er i al al l egi ng t hat
t hey ar e hol di ng dual ci t i zenshi p, however , i t i s expect ed t hat i n
fut ur e t hey (l ear ned counsel ) wi l l be mor e car eful
67. Keepi ng i n vi ew t he pr i nci pl e of Int er pr et at i on of
St at ut e/ Const i t ut i on, as br i efl y di scussed her e-i n-above,
Ar t i cl e 63 (1) (c) of t he Const i t ut i on r ead wi t h Sect i on 14 of t he
Paki st an Ci t i zenshi p (Amendment ) Act 1972 (Act XVII of 1972),
we have no doubt i n our mi nd t hat a per son hol di ng dual
ci t i zenshi p i s di squal i fi ed fr om bei ng el ect ed or chosen as
member of t he Maj l i s-e-Shoor a (Par l i ament ).
68. Now we wi l l deal wi t h t he case of Mr . A. Rehman
Mal i k, Senat or . Admi t t edl y he was hol der of Nat i onal i t y of U.K.
It i s not di sput ed by hi m t hat he (Mr . A. Rehman Mal i k,
Senat or ) acqui r ed ci t i zenshi p of U.K, however , he al l eged t hat
he has r enounced hi s ci t i zenshi p of UK on 25.03.2008 and a
l et t er dat ed 19.04.2012 was pl aced on r ecor d i n suppor t of hi s
cont ent i on t hat he had r enounced hi s ci t i zenshi p of U.K. on
25.03.2008 and we woul d l i ke t o r epr oduce t he cont ent s of t he
sai d l et t er whi ch r eads:-
-: 29 :-
MINISTER FOR
INTERIOR
Gover nment of
Paki st an
Isl amabad
SENATOR A. REHMAN MALIK
No.I/ PS/ M/ 2012
Dat ed: 19
t h
Apr il ,
2012
In Re: CONSTI TUTION PETI TION NO.5 OF 2012
Syed Mehmood Akht ar Naqvi
Pet i t i oner
Vs.
The Feder al Gover nment t hr ough Secr et ar y Law and
ot her s
Respondent s

Pl ease r efer t o your l et t er No.1(3)/ 2012-AGP dat ed 31
st
Mar ch
2012, concer ni ng t he above ci t ed Const i t ut i onal Pet i t i on.

In t hi s r egard, i t may be i nfor med t hat by vi r t ue of my
cont i nuous exi l e i n UK for ni ne year s due t o pol i t i cal
vi ct i mi zat i on and li fe t hr eat s i n Pakist an, whi ch i s a mat t er of
publi c r ecord, I was gr ant ed Bri t i sh nat i onal i t y but I never
r enounced my Paki st ani ci t i zenship as dual nat i onal i t y i s
al l owed under t he Pakist ani l aw. However , I r enounced my
Br i t i sh nat i onal i t y on 25.03.2008 befor e I hel d publi c offi ce. I
t hus do not hol d any ot her ci t i zenshi p i ncl udi ng of Br i t i sh
nat i onal i t y except t hat of Paki st ani ci t i zenship.

Your s si ncer el y
-sd-
(Senat or A. Rehman Mal ik)

69. We have r epeat edl y asked and gr ant ed suffi ci ent
t i me and oppor t uni t y t o l ear ned counsel for Mr . A. Rehman
Mal i k t o pr oduce cer t i fi cat e i ssued by t he U.K. Bor der Agency
i n t er ms of sect i on 12(1) of t he Br i t i sh Nat i onal i t y Act , 1981
confi r mi ng t hat he had r enounced hi s ci t i zenshi p of UK on
25.03.2008 as al l eged and he i s no mor e ci t i zen of U.K.
-: 30 :-
70. Lear ned counsel appear i ng on hi s behal f pl aced on
r ecor d l et t er dat ed 29.05.2012 i ssued by t he UK Bor der
Agency. Cont ent s of t he same ar e r epr oduced her ei n-bel ow:-
Home Offi ce
UK Bor der
Agency

Mr . A. R. Mal ik Our Ref M751044
25 Nor fol k Cr escent your Ref
LONDON Dat e 29 May 2012
W22YS

Dear Mr . Mal ik

Renunci at i on of Bri t i sh Ci t i zenshi p

I am wr i t i ng t o i nfor m you ar e now r egist er ed as havi ng
r enounced Br i t i sh Ci t i zenshi p.

Encl osed i s t he Decl ar at i on of r enunci at i on bear i ng a st amp of
r egi st r at i on. Thi s confi r ms t he dat e on whi ch you ceased t o be
a Br i t i sh Ci t i zen under Sect i on 12(1) of t he Br i t i sh Nat i onal i t y
Act , 1981.

Your s si ncer el y,

-sd-
Mr s CS Hughes
Managed Mi gr at ion, Nat i onal i t y Gr oup
Depar t ment 73

71. Fr om t he cer t i fi cat e i ssued by t he UK Bor der
Agency, i t appear s t hat t hey have infor med Mr . A. Rehman
Mal i k on 29.05.2012 t hat you are now registered as having
renounced Bri tish Ci tizenship . They have encl osed t he
Decl ar at i on of r enunci at i on bear i ng a st amp of r egi st r at i on, t he
dat e on whi ch he ceased t o be a Br i t i sh Ci t i zen under Sect i on
12(1) of t he Br i t i sh Nat i onal i t y Act , 1981, however , sai d
decl ar at i on of r enunci at i on had not been pl aced on r ecor d
despi t e we r epeat edl y asked t hat t he same may be pl aced on
r ecor d.
-: 31 :-
72. Fr om bar e r eadi ng of t he sai d l et t er dat ed
29.05.2012 by U.K. Bor der Agency, i t appear s t hat Mr . A.
Rehman Mal i k has been r egi st er ed as havi ng r enounced Br i t i sh
Ci t i zenshi p on 29.05.2012. Thi s aspect of t he mat t er has
al r eady been di scussed i n our shor t or der , t hus need not be
di scussed i n det ai l agai n but suffi ce i t t o say t hat appar ent l y
for t hi s r eason r eal i zi ng l egal posi t i on, he has r esi gned fr om
member shi p of t he Par l i ament on 11.07.2012 and agai nst t he
vacant seat he par t i ci pat ed i n t he fr esh el ect i ons and was
decl ar ed successful candi dat e vi de not i fi cat i on dat ed
24.07.2012.
73. In t he case of Muhammad Azhar Si ddiqui versus
Federat i on of Pakist an, (PLD 2012 SC 774, i n an addi t i onal
not e i t was hel d by Honbl e Mr . Just i ce Jawwad S. Khawaj a
t hat :-
The people have thus, in the clearest possible
terms, stated that they will not allow
themselves to be represented by a person who
has or earns a disqualif ication under Arti cle 63
ibid.
74. Thi s Cour t i n t he j udgment r epor t ed as Muddasar
Qayyum Nahra versus Ch. Bilal I jaz and ot hers, (2011 SCMR
80) quot ed wi t h appr oval , t he par agr aphs No. 21 & 22 of an
ear l i er j udgment pr onounced by t hi s Cour t , and r epor t ed as
Ch. Bi lal I jaz versus Mudassar Qayyum Nahra and 4 ot hers,
(2010 CLC 1692) whi ch r eads as under : -
21. The concept of i nser t i ng Ar t i cl e 62 cl ause (f)
i n t he Const i t ut i on i s ver y pur poseful ;
Const i t ut i on of Isl ami c Republ i c of Paki st an,
-: 32 :-
1972 cannot be sai d t o have i ncor por at ed t he
sai d cl ause wi t hout any meani ngful obj ect i ve.
The hol der s of Publ i c offi ces l i ke member s of
Nat i onal and Pr ovi nci al Assembl i es ar e expect ed
t o be per sons of uni mpeachabl e char act er . The
t er ms used i n cl ause (f) of Ar t i cl e 62 of t he
Const i t ut i on of Isl ami c Republ i c of Paki st an,
1973 need t o be under st ood and i mpl ement ed i n
or der t o st op di shonest and cheat ful per sons
fr om ent er i ng i nt o t he cor r i dor s of t he Nat i onal
and Pr ovi nci al Assembl i es. The wor ds wr i t t en i n
cl ause (f) ar e t hus r epr oduced bel ow whi ch ar e
deni ed and i nt er pr et ed i n wel l known Engl i sh
Di ct i onar i es as ar e avai l abl e on web-si de
(si t e)/ i nt er net wi t h uni ver sal l y accept ed
meani ngs:--
Sagacious
(i ) Ski l l ful i n st at ecr aft or management
(i i ) Mar ket by ar t ful pr udence expedi ence and
shr ewdness.
(i i i ) Havi ng pr ompt wi sdom.
(i v) A wi se l eader .
(v) Insi ght ful ; for esi ght ed
Right eous
(i ) Mor al l y upr i ght , wi t hout gui l t or si n.
(i i ) Char act er i zed by accept ed st andar d of
mor al i t y or j ust i ce
(i i i ) Good: mor al l y admi r abl e.
(i v) Cl ean handed; gui l t l ess.
(v) Just : Used, especi al l y of what i s l egal l y or
et hi cal l y r i ght of pr oper or befi t t i ng
(vi ) Mor al : concer ned wi t h r i ght and wr ong or
confor mi ng t o st andar ds of behavi or :
mor al l y excel l ent wor t hy.
(vi i ) Vi r t uous; mor al l y excel l ent wor t hy.
(vi i i ) Wor t hy; havi ng wor t h or mer i t or value;
bei ng Honbl e or admi r abl e.
(i x) Honest ; bl amel ess.
-: 33 :-

Non profligat e
(i ) Reckl essl y wast eful .
(i i ) Wi l dl y ext r avagant .
(i i i ) Shamel essl y i mmor al or debauched.
(i v) Spendt hr i ft .
(v) Pr odi gal i n t hei r expendi t ur es.
(vi ) Squander i ng

Honest :
(i ) Di spl ayi ng i nt egr i t y; upr i ght .
(i i ) Not decept i ve or fr audul ent .
(i i i ) Char act er i zed by t r ut h; not fal se.
(i v) Si ncer e.
(v) Not gi ven t o cheat i ng.

Ameen (An Ar abi c wor d)
Meani ng:
Tr ust wor t hy: fai t hful .
22. The concept s pr oj ect ed i n usi ng al l t he
above t er mi nol ogy i s not di ffi cul t t o under st and.
It demonst r at es a keen desi r e of t he Const i t ut i on
t hat per sons desi r i ng t o engage t hemsel ves i n
t he pr ocess of l aw maki ng for t he count r y must
t hemsel ves be possessed wi t h Hi gh qual i t i es of
per sonal char act er and mor al val ues. A l egi sl at or
who i ndul ges i nt o unfai r means i n ear ni ng or
pr ocur i ng hi s educat i onal document s cannot be
t er med t o be possessi ng t he r equi r ed st andar ds
of hi gh per sonal char act er i st i cs ment ioned i n
cl ause (f) of Ar t i cl e 62 of t he Const i tut i on of
Isl ami c Republ i c of Paki st an, 1973. Member s of
t he Nat i onal or Pr ovi nci al Assembl i es on t hei r
successful el ect i on have been fur t her obl i ged t o
t ake oat h as i ncor por at ed i n t he t hi r d schedul e
of t he Const i t ut i on, wi t h necessar y condi t i on of
under t aki ng t he per for mance of t he dut i es and
funct i ons honest l y i n accor dance wi t h
const i t ut i on. El ect ed member s ar e fur t her l i kel y
-: 34 :-
t o be ent r ust ed wi t h t he ot her hi gh and oner ous
offi ces of t he Pr i me Mi ni st er , Feder al Mi ni st er ,
Speaker of t he Nat i onal and Pr ovi nci al
Assembl i es, Deput y Speaker s of t he Nat i onal
and Pr ovi nci al Assembl i es and Chi ef Mi ni st er s of
t he Pr ovi nces. The swear i ng of sol emn oat h fr om
such hol der s of publ i c offi ces ar e al so pr escr i bed
i n t he Const i t ut i on r equi r i ng si mi l ar
per for mances of dut i es and funct i ons wi t h
honest l y and al so t o be fai t hful t o be
Const i t ut i on and t he l aw. A per son who indul ges
i nt o unfai r means i n pr ocur i ng hi s educat i onal
qual i fi cat i ons and i s al so found gui l t y by t he
Di sci pl i nar y Commi t t ee, whi ch i s t he onl y
aut hor i t y compet ent t o i nqui r e i nt o t he mat t er s
of such al l egat i ons agai nst candi dat es appear i ng
i n t he exami nat i on of t he sai d Uni ver si ty, does
not deser ve t o cl ai m t o be an honest , r ight eous
or Ameen per son so t hat he be assi gned the hi gh
r esponsi bi l i t i es of per for mi ng nat i onal funct i ons
of r unni ng t he affai r s of t he count r y. The spi r i t
wi t h whi ch t he wor ds sagaci ous, r i ght eous, non
pr ofl i gat e, honest and Ameen have been used by
t he Const i t ut i on of Isl ami c Republ i c of Paki st an,
1973 for t he el i gi bi l i t y of t he candi dat es
cont est i ng t he el ect i ons of Member s of Nat i onal
or Pr ovi nci al Assembl y cannot be al l owed t o be
fr ust r at ed i f per sons who secur e t hei r
educat i onal document s t hr ough unfai r means
and ar e found gui l t y of such a condemnabl e act
by fi l e (t he) compet ent aut hor i t y ar e al lowed t o
be gi ven any ent r y i nt o t he door s of Nat i onal or
Pr ovi nci al Assembl i es or (of) our countr y. The
r espondent No.1 not onl y i s found gui lt y of a
di shonest or cheat ful i nvol vement i nt o t he use of
unfai r means i n pr ocur i ng hi s
B.A./ degr ee/ r esul t s fr om t he Uni ver si t y of
Punj ab but al so made del i ber at ely fal se
-: 35 :-
st at ement befor e t hi s Tr i bunal as wel l when
P.W.1 was suggest ed t hat he was admi t tedl y not
hol der of t he B.A. degr ee fr om t he Uni ver si t y of
t he Punj ab wher eas i n hi s wr i t t en stat ement
Exh.P12, t he r espondent wher e he was
r espondent No.4 i n t he sai d wr i t pet i t i on
cat egor i cal l y t ook up t he pl ea and cl ai med t o be
hol der of a val i d B.A. degr ee fr om t he Uni ver si t y
of t he Punj ab. He i s t hus not wor t hy of cr edence
and cannot be al l owed t o be ent r ust ed wi t h
St at e r esponsi bi l i t i es of Law Maki ng; t o be i n-
char ge of t he Nat i onal Exchequer (Exchequer ) or
be el i gi bl e t o r epr esent t he peopl e of Paki st an.

75. In t he case of I ft ikhar Ahmad Khan Bar versus
Chief Elect i on Commissioner I slamabad and ot hers, (PLD
2010 SC 817) i t was hel d t hat :-
An here is a man who being consti tutionally and
legally debarred f rom being i ts member, managed
to sneak into i t by making a f alse statement on
oath and by using bogus, f ake and f orged
documents polluting the piety of this pious body.
His said conduct demonstrates not only his
callous contempt f or the basic norms of honesty,
integri ty and even f or his own oath but also
undermines the sancti ty, the digni ty and the
majesty of the said august House. He is guilty,
inter ali a, of impersonationposting to be what
he was not i.e. a graduate. He is also guilty of
having been a party to the making of f alse
documents and then dishonestly using them f or
his benef it knowing them to be f alse. He is f urther
guilty of cheating---cheating not only his own
consti tuents but the nation at l arge.

-: 36 :-
76 Fr om fact s not ed her ei n-above, what appear s i s t hat
r espondent was hol di ng of ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn St at e, made
st at ement on oat h t hat he i s qual i fi ed under Ar t i cl e 62(1) (c) of
t he Const i t ut i on and not di squal i fi ed under Ar t i cl e 63 (1) of t he
Const i t ut i on appar ent l y made fal se st at ement .
77. For ease of r efer ence, we woul d l i ke t o r epr oduce
par a Nos: 17, 18 and 19 of our shor t or der whi ch r ead as
under :-
17. It is to be noted that a candidate,
while f iling nomination papers signs a
declaration on oath to the f ollowing
effect: -
DECLRATION AND OATH BY THE
PERSON NOMINATED

I, the above mentioned candidate, hereby
declare on oath that,
(i) I have consented to the above
nomination and that I f ulf ill the qualif icati ons
specif ied in Article 62 of the Constitution and
I am not subject to any of the
disqualif ications specif ied in Article 63 of the
Consti tution or any other law f or the time
being in f orce for being elected as a member
of the National Assembly/ Provincial
Assembly.

18. The above declaration is applicable to the
candidates of membership of Parliament and
Provincial Assemblies, theref ore, whoever
signs such a declaration is meant to be fully
aware of the consti tutional provisions and
af ter signing the said decl aration if the same
-: 37 :-
turns out to be f alse, he makes hi mself liable
to be disqualif ied from being elected or
chosen as Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parli ament) or a Provincial Assembly for
making misstatement or conceal ment of fact,
and also exposes hi mself to cri mi nal
proceedings contempl ated under secti ons
193, 196, 197, 198 and 199 PPC.
19. In view of the consti tutional provisions under
Article 63(1)(c) & (p) of the Consti tution read wi th
section 99(1)(f ) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1976 it is to be seen as to
whether their cases are to be dealt wi th by
the Speaker/ Chairman under Article 63(2) or
by the Election Commission under Arti cle
63(3) or are to be de-notif ied by the Election
Commission af ter having been declared to be
disqualif ied from being a member of Majli s-e-
Shoora or Provinci al Assemblies. This Court
has earlier deal t wi th this matter in the case
of Syed Yousaf Raza Gill ani in Consti tution
Peti tion No. 40 of 2012, etc. He was
convicted by a 7-Member Bench vide
judgment dated 26.04.2012 f or contempt of
Court under Article 204(2) of the Consti tution
read wi th section 3 of the Contempt of Court
Ordinance, 2003 and sentenced under
section 5 of the said Ordinance and the
ref erence filed by one Maulvi Iqbal Hai der
-: 38 :-
bef ore the Speaker of Assembly to decl are
hi m disqualif ied under Article 63(2) was
answered in the negative. Thereaf ter, the
ruling of the Speaker was challenged before
this Court through Consti tution Peti ti ons
which were allowed and while dealing wi th
the si mil ar issue, the Court vide judgment
dated 19.06.2012 held as under: -
As a Bench of 7 Honble Judges vide
judgment dated 26.04.2012 f ollowed by the
detailed reasons released on 08.05.2012
has f ound Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani guil ty of
contempt of Court under Article 204(2) of the
Consti tution of the Isl amic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973 read wi th section 3 of the
Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and
sentenced hi m to undergo i mprisonment til l
rising of the Court under section 5 of the sai d
Ordinance, and since no appeal was f iled
against this judgment, the conviction has
attained f inality. Theref ore, Syed Yousaf
Raza Gill ani has become disqualif ied from
being a Member of the Majlis-e-Shoora
(Parli ament) in terms of Article 63(1)(g) of the
Consti tution on and f rom the date and ti me
of pronouncement of the judgment of this
Court dated 26.04.2012 wi th all
consequences, i.e. he has also ceased to be
the Pri me Minister of Pakistan wi th effect
from the said date and the office of the Prime
Minister shall be deemed to be vacant
accordingly;
The Election Commission of Pakistan is
required to issue notif ication of
disqualif ication of Syed Yousaf Raza Gill ani
-: 39 :-
from being a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora
w.e.f . 26.4.2012.

78. As r egar ds t he cont ent i on of l ear ned At t or ney
Gener al for Paki st an t hat no di squal i fi cat i on has been pr ovi ded
for ot her i mpor t ant Const i t ut i onal post s l i ke t he Pr esi dent ,
Gover nor s, Chi ef of Ar my St aff, Judges of t he super i or Cour t s
and Audi t or Gener al . Si nce t hi s i ssue i s not befor e us, we ar e
not expr essi ng our opi ni on on i t except t o say t hat i n t er ms of
Ar t i cl e 41 (2) of t he Const i t ut i on onl y a per son who qual i fi ed t o
be el ect ed as a Member of t he Nat i onal Assembl y can be el ect ed
as a Pr esi dent i n accor dance wi t h pr ovi si on of 2
nd Schedule
by t he
member s of t he el ect or al col l ege consi st i ng of member s of bot h
t he houses and t he member s of t he Pr ovi nci al Assembl i es and
t hat i t i s for t he Legi sl at ur e t o deci de, whet her t o amend t he
Const i t ut i on/ Law i f t hey i n t hei r wi sdom deci ded t hat on t he
ot her const i t ut i onal post s, per sons hol di ng ci t i zenshi p of a
for ei gn st at e ar e not qual i fi ed t o hol d such post s.
I s pet it ion maint ainable under Art icle 184(3) of t he
Const it ut i on
79. Al t hough t he quest i on of mai nt ai nabi l i t y of pet i t i on
under Ar t i cl e 184(3) of t he Const i t ut i on has not ser i ousl y been
ar gued by t he l ear ned counsel for t he r espondent s, t he i ssue i n
t he pet i t i on about t he di squal i fi cat i on of a per son t o be a
Member of Par l i ament , t he St at e has t o exer ci se i t s power s and
aut hor i t y t hr ough t he chosen r epr esent at i ves of t he peopl e and
Par l i ament one of t he nobl est , honour abl e and i mpor t ant
-: 40 :-
i nst i t ut i ons of t he Count r y t o make t he l aws for t he nat i on and
safeguar d t hei r fundament al r i ght s, i s a quest i on of publ i c
i mpor t ance.
80. The expr essi on publ i c i mpor t ance has been
i nt er pr et ed i n a number of cases i ncl udi ng Manzoor Elahi
versus Federat i on of Paki st an, (PLD 1975 SC 66), General
Secret ary, West Pakist an Salt Miners Labour Union (CBA),
Khewra, Jhelum versus Direct or I ndust ries and Mineral
Development , Punjab, (1994 SCMR 2061) and Mrs. Shahida
Zahir Abbasi versus President of Pakist an, (PLD 1996 SC
632). It i s qui t e cl ear t hat t he quest i on as t o whet her a
par t i cul ar case i nvol ves t he el ement of publ ic i mpor tance i s t o
be det er mi ned by t hi s Cour t wi t h refer ence t o t he fact s and
ci r cumst ances of each case.
81. For what has been di scussed above, we decl ar e t hat :-

(a) Ch. Zahi d Iqbal , MNA, Ms. Far ah
Naz Isfahani , MNA, Mr . Far hat
Mehmood Khan, MNA, Mr . Jami l
Ahmad Mal i k, MNA, Mr .
Muhammad Akhl aq,
MPA(Punj ab), Dr . Muhammad
Ashr af Chohan, MPA (Punj ab),
Ms. Nadi a Gabol , MPA (Si ndh),
Ch. Waseem Qadi r , MPA
(Punj ab), Ch. Nadeem Khadi m,
MPA(Punj ab), Ms. Amna But t ar ,
MPA (Punj ab), Dr . Ahmad Al i
Shah, MPA (Si ndh) have been
found di squal i fi ed fr om bei ng
-: 41 :-
member s of Maj l i s-e-Shoor a
(Par l i ament ) and Pr ovi nci al
Assembl i es because of t hei r
di squal i fi cat i on under Ar t i cl e
63(1)(c) of t he Const i t ut i on.

(b) The Par l i ament ar i ans/ Member s
of Pr ovi nci al Assembl i es, who
have been decl ar ed t o be
di squal i fi ed, i n vi ew of t he
est abl i shed fact t hat t hey have
acqui r ed t he ci t i zenshi p of
For ei gn St at es, t her efor e, no
quest i on has ar i sen, whi ch i s t o
be det er mi ned by t he
Chai r man/ Speaker . Thus, no
r efer ence under Ar t i cl e 63(2) i s
bei ng made.

(c) The El ect i on Commi ssi on i s
di r ect ed t o de-not i fy t he r espect i ve
member shi ps of
Par l i ament / Assembl i es of afor esai d
per sons.

(d) Al l t he Member s of t he
Par l i ament / Pr ovi nci al Assembl i es
not ed above had made fal se
decl ar at i ons befor e t he El ect i on
Commi ssi on whi l e fi l i ng t hei r
nomi nat i on paper s and as such appear
t o be gui l t y of cor r upt pr act i ce i n t er ms
of Sect i on 78 of Repr esent at i on of
Peopl es Act , 1976, t her efor e, t he
El ect i on Commi ssi on i s di r ect ed t o
-: 42 :-
i nst i t ut e l egal pr oceedi ngs agai nst
t hem under sect i on 82 of t he Act r ead
wi t h sect i ons 193, 196, 197, 198 and
199 PPC i n accor dance wi t h l aw.

(e) The member s of
Par l i ament / Pr ovi nci al Assembl i es
not ed her ei nabove, bei ng di squal i fi ed
per sons ar e di r ect ed t o r efund al l
monet ar y benefi t s dr awn by t hem for
t he per i od dur i ng whi ch t hey occupi ed
t he publ i c offi ce and had dr awn t hei r
emol ument s et c. fr om t he publ i c
exchequer i ncl udi ng mont hl y
r emuner at i ons, TA/ DA, faci l i t i es of
accommodat i on al ong wi t h ot her per ks
whi ch shal l be cal cul at ed i n t er ms of
money by t he Secr et ar i es of t he Senat e,
Nat i onal Assembl y and Pr ovi nci al
Assembl i es accor di ngl y.

(f) The amount , so r ecover ed fr om
al l of t hem by r espect i ve
Secr et ar i es shal l be deposi t ed i n
t he publ i c exchequer wi t hi n a
per i od of t wo weeks and
compl i ance r epor t shal l be sent t o
t he Regi st r ar .

(g) As r egar ds t he case of Senat or A.
Rehman Mal i k, i t may be not ed
t hat at t he t i me of fi l i ng of
nomi nat i on paper s for el ect i on t o
t he Senat e hel d i n t he year 2008,
he had made a fal se decl ar at i on
-: 43 :-
t o t he effect t hat he was not
subj ect t o any of t he
di squal i fi cat i ons speci fi ed i n
Ar t i cl e 63 of t he Const i t ut i on or
any ot her l aw for t he t i me bei ng
i n for ce for bei ng el ect ed as a
member of t he
Par l i ament / Pr ovi nci al Assembl y,
t her efor e, r efer ence wi l l be
r equi r ed t o be made t o t he
Chai r man Senat e under Ar t i cl e
63(2) i n vi ew of t he pr ovi si on of
sect i on 99(1)(f) of t he Act of 1976,
whi ch l ays down t hat a per son
shal l not be qual i fi ed fr om bei ng
el ect ed or chosen as a member of
an Assembl y unl ess he i s
sagaci ous, r i ght eous and non-
pr ofl i gat e and honest and ameen.
Mr . A. Rahman Mal i k, i n vi ew of
t he fal se decl ar at i on fi l ed by hi m
at t he t i me of cont est i ng t he
el ect i on t o t he Senat e hel d i n t he
year 2008, wher ei n he was
el ect ed, cannot be consi der ed
sagaci ous, r i ght eous, honest and
ameen wi t hi n t he cont empl at i on
of sect i on 99(1)(f) of t he Act of
1976. Ther efor e, for such
pur poses Ar t i cl e 63(p) i s t o be
adher ed t o because t he
di squal i fi cat i on i ncur r ed by hi m
i s envi saged under t he l aw,
r efer r ed t o her ei nabove i n vi ew of
hi s own st at ement t hat he had
-: 44 :-
r enounced hi s ci t i zenshi p of UK
wher eas t he fact r emai ns t hat
such r enunci at i on al ong wi t h
decl ar at i on can onl y be seen as
havi ng been made on
29.05.2012.

(h) Senat or A. Rehman Mal i k i s
di r ect ed t o r efund al l monet ar y
benefi t s dr awn by hi m upt o
11.7.2012 for t he per i od dur i ng
whi ch he occupi ed t he publ i c
offi ce i n t he same manner as
di r ect ed i n t he case of ot her
Par l i ament ar i ans not ed above.

(i ) As Mr . A. Rehman Mal i k had
made fal se decl ar at i ons whi l e
fi l i ng hi s nomi nat i on paper s
befor e t he El ect i on Commi ssi on
i n t he el ect i on hel d i n t he year
2008, t her efor e, t he El ect i on
Commi ssi on i s di r ect ed t o
i nst i t ut e l egal pr oceedi ngs
agai nst hi m as i t has been
di r ect ed i n t he case of above sai d
par l i ament ar i ans.
82. The El ect i on Commi ssi on of Paki st an i s al so
di r ect ed t o exami ne t he cases of t he Par l i ament ar i ans and t he
member s of Pr ovi nci al Assembl i es, i ndi vi dual l y, by obt ai ni ng
-: 45 :-
fr esh decl ar at i on on oat h fr om al l of t hem t hat t hey ar e not
di squal i fi ed under Ar t i cl e 63(1)(c) of t he Const i t ut i on.
83 In vi ew of t he above, t he t i t l ed Const i t ut i on Pet i t i on
i s di sposed of i n t he above t er ms.
84. These ar e t he r easons of our shor t or der .

Chi ef Just i ce

Judge

Judge
Isl amabad

Appr oved for r epor t i ng

-: 46 :-
Jawwad S. Khawaja, J. I have had the benefi t of goi ng through the reasoni ng
of my l earned brother Khi l ji Ari f Hussai n, J. i n support of the short order
dated 20.9.2012. I am i n agreement wi th hi s concl usi ons but am addi ng thi s
concurri ng opi ni on gi vi ng my addi ti onal reasons i n support of the sai d
order.
2. At the outset i t i s necessary to set out wi th cl ari ty the preci se i ssue
before us: Does our Consti tuti on permi t a ci ti zen of Paki stan, who al so
acqui res the ci ti zenshi p of another State, to become a member of Paki stans
Parl i ament or of a Provi nci al Assembl y? The Consti tuti ons answer to thi s
questi on i s a si mpl e No . The basi s for thi s i s Arti cl e 63(1)(c) whi ch states i n
the cl earest terms that: [a] per son shal l be di squal i fi ed fr om bei ng el ect ed or
chosen as, and fr om bei ng, a member of t he M aj l i s-e-Shoor a (Par l i ament ), i f: (c)
he acqui r es t he ci t i zenshi p of a for ei gn St at e Arti cl e 63(1)(c) al so recei ves
strong textual support from other parts of the Consti tuti on as el aborated
l ater i n thi s opi ni on. On account of Arti cl e 113, the di squal ifi cati on stated i n
Arti cl e 63(1)(c) al so extends to members of the provi nci al assembl i es. Thi s
consti tuti onal i mperati ve shoul d have been cl ear to al l from the very
begi nni ng; but cl earl y, li ke some other consti tuti onal di ctates, i t had not been
adhered to. As far back as 2002, i n the case ti tl ed U mar A hmad Ghumman
ver sus Gover nment of Paki st an and others (PLD 2002 Lahore 521), i t was held
that a Paki stani who has acqui red the Ci ti zenshi p of a foreign State i s
di squal ifi ed from membershi p i n Parl i ament or a Provi nci al Assembl y.
Today, i n deci di ng the peti ti on presentl y before us, we have done nothi ng
more than to gi ve effect to thi s rul e whi ch al ready exi sts i n the Consti tuti on.
3. We rei terate that the dual ci ti zenshi p hel d by expatri ate and overseas
Paki stani s i s not the i ssue requi ri ng adjudi cati on i n thi s case. The l earned
Attorney General and counsel representi ng some of the respondents appear
-: 47 :-
to have confused dual ci ti zenshi p wi th the Consti tuti onal di squal i fi cati on
contai ned i n Arti cl e 63(1)(c) i bi d. We may cl arify that secti on 14(1) of the
Ci ti zenshi p Act, 1951, confers upon Paki stani ci ti zens the right to hol d the
ci ti zenshi p of certai n other countri es wi thout havi ng to forgo thei r Paki stani
ci ti zenshi p. The ri ght, therefore, of Paki stani ci ti zens to hol d dual ci ti zenshi p,
as per l aw, remai ns very much a statutory right vested i n them. The extent
and scope of that l egal right has no rel evance to the questi on of
di squal ifi cati on rel ati ng to el i gibi li ty for bei ng a member of Parl i ament or of
a Provi nci al Assembl y.
4. In fact, on numerous occasi ons i n the recent past, thi s Court has
expressed the nati onal senti ment of grati tude for our expatri ates, esti mated
to be i n the range of 7 to 8 mi l l i on i n number. Most of them, parti cul arl y
those worki ng i n Mi ddl e Eastern countri es donot hol d dual ci ti zenshi p.
These sons and daughters of Paki stan toi l i n forei gn l ands, away from thei r
hearths, homes and l oved ones and, i n the process, provi de an economi c
l i fel i ne to Paki stan i n these cri ti cal ti mes. In the l ast fi nanci al year, these
overseas Paki stani s remi tted more than US$ 13 bi ll i on i n hard cash, to bol ster
the economy of the country. Thi s fi gure i s slated to i ncrease i n the current
fi nanci al year. Yet, at ti mes, these hardworki ng and patri oti c Paki stani
expatri ates recei ve short shri ft and humil i ating treatment from government
agenci es such as the Immi grati on and other servi ces, Ci vi l Avi ati on
Authori ty (CAA) and the Overseas Paki stanis Foundati on (OPF), when they
return to Paki stan after months or even years away from home. Thi s Court
has taken suo mot o noti ce (HRC No. 24770-G/ 2011) of the mal treatment
whi ch overseas Paki stani s recei ve at the hands of such authori ti es.
5. The parti cul ars of the peti ti oners, i nterveners and the respondents and
the arguments presented by them have been suffi ci ently addressed i n the
-: 48 :-
l ead opi ni on. The reasons for consi deri ng the present peti ti ons mai ntai nabl e
are al so evident. The text of the Consti tuti on i s cl ear enough. It pl ai nl y
di squal ifi es a person from seeki ng el ecti on to or from bei ng a member of
Parl i ament i f he acqui res the ci ti zenshi p of another State. What i s, however,
worth emphasi zi ng i s al so the spi ri t behind Arti cl e 63 (1)(c) i bi d. Thi s
becomes cl ear when we read the arti cl e together wi th certai n other rel evant
provi si ons of the Consti tuti on. Courts i n Paki stan have, repeatedl y, held that
the Consti tuti on i s to be read as an organi c whol e, whose meani ng i s to be
gathered hol i sti call y through reason (M uni r Bhat t i v. Feder at i on of Paki st an
PLD 2011 SC 407). Thi s i s why i t i s a matter of utmost i mportance that the
spi ri t behi nd Arti cl e 63(1)(c) i s al so full y comprehended, when i nterpreti ng
and appl yi ng i ts cl ear i ntent.
6. When tryi ng to understand the spi ri t behi nd Arti cl e 63(1)(c), the fi rst
poi nt that needs to be consi dered i s the fi duciary rol e envi saged for members
of Parl i ament i n our Consti tuti on. In a number of judgments, we have
emphasi zed the noti on that all state authority i s i n the nature of a sacr ed
t r ust and i ts bearers shoul d therefore be seen as fiduci ari es. In M uhammad
Yasi n v. Feder at i on of Paki st an (PLD 2012 SC 132), we hel d that hol der s of
publ i c offi ce ar e, fi r st and for emost fi duci ar i es and t r ust ees for t he Peopl e of
Paki st an. A nd, when per for mi ng t he funct i ons of t hei r Offi ce, t hey can have no
i nt er est ot her t han t he i nt er est s of t he honour abl e Peopl e of Paki st an .
Parl i amentari ans, whi l e acti ng as trustees and the chosen representati ves of
the peopl e, take deci si ons whi ch are often of grave consequence for the
protecti on of the economi c, pol i ti cal and over-all nati onal i nterests of the
peopl e of Paki stan. In other words, thei rs i s a fi duci ary duty of the hi ghest
order. In our Parl i amentary democracy, members of Parl i ament al so
-: 49 :-
consti tute the Government as defi ned i n Arti cl e 90 of the Consti tuti on and
el ect the Pri me Mi ni ster who i s the chi ef executi ve of the country.
7. It i s wel l settl ed that the foremost obl i gati on of a fiduci ary i s to show
compl ete l oyal ty to the pri nci pal and to scrupul ousl y avoi d si tuati ons whi ch
may create a confl i ct of i nterest i n the performance of such duty. Cogni zant
of thi s pri nci ple, our Consti tuti on requi res consti tuti onal functi onari es
i ncl udi ng members of the Nati onal Assembl y, Senators and members of
Provi nci al Assembli es to sol emnl y swear that they wi ll bear t r ue fai t h and
al l egi ance t o Paki st an and act al ways i n t he i nt er est of t he sover ei gnt y, i nt egr i t y,
sol i dar i t y, wel l -bei ng and pr osper i t y of Paki st an. (Thi rd Schedul e, Consti tuti on)
8. It shoul d be obvi ous that hol di ng dual ci ti zenshi p i s l i kely to create
si tuati ons for the hol der where he faces a confl i ct of i nterest i n the di scharge
of fi duci ary duty to the peopl e of Paki stan. The confl i ct of i nterest i s
parti cul arl y evident when the acqui si ti on of forei gn ci ti zenshi p entai l s taki ng
an oath of al l egi ance to the forei gn state and renunci ati on of al l egi ance to
Paki stan. Thus, for i nstance, when Ms. Farah Naz Isfahani (and others such
as her) acqui red ci ti zenshi p of the Uni ted States, she swore an oath to bear
t r ue fai t h and al l egi ance t o the Uni ted States, to bear ar ms on i ts behal f and
to r enounce and abj ur e absol ut el y and ent i r el y al l al l egi ance and fi del i t y t o any
for ei gn st at e such as Paki stan. Thi s oath i s a statutory requi rement
sti pul ated i n the Uni ted States Code. Its present wordi ng was i ntroduced by
the Immi grati on and Nati onal i ty Act, 1952 and cannot be wai ved except i n
very rare ci rcumstances, such as bei ng a mi nor or of unsound mi nd.
Si mi l arl y, when Mr. A. Rehman Mal i k (and others such as hi m) acqui red
Bri ti sh ci ti zenshi p, he swore by A l mi ght y God t hat on becomi ng a Br i t i sh ci t i zen
[ he] wi l l be fai t hful and bear t r ue al l egi ance t o H er M aj est y Queen El i zabet h t he
Second, her hei r s and successor s and that he wil l gi ve hi s l oyal t y t o t he
-: 50 :-
U ni t ed Ki ngdom. Cl earl y, oaths of thi s nature, do confli ct wi th the fi duci ary
obl i gati on of unswervi ng and undi vided l oyal ty to Paki stan and i ts peopl e. It
i s hard to see how someone who has openl y r enounce[ d] and abj ur e[ d] al l
al l egi ance to Paki stan or who has sworn all egi ance to a forei gn monarch, can
then be safel y entrusted wi th the sacr ed t r ust of protecti ng the i nterests of
the peopl e of Paki stan. In sum, therefore, acqui ri ng the ci ti zenshi p of a
forei gn state does create a seri ous confl i ct of i nterest; such confl i ct of i nterest
renders a person unsui ted for di schargi ng a fi duci ary duty as onerous as
bei ng a publ i c representati ve. Thi s i s preci sely the spi ri t i n whi ch the framers
have enacted Arti cl e 63(1)(c) of the Consti tuti on, whi ch prevents ci ti zens
who acqui re the ci ti zenshi p of another state from enteri ng or remai ni ng i n
Parl i ament and i n the Provi nci al Assembli es.
9. The confl i ct of i nterest si tuati on anti ci pated i n the Consti tuti on i s not
i magi nary. It i s a real proposi ti on and can easi l y be i l l ustrated through an
i ssue whi ch i s current and topi cal . In the case of Ms. Farah Naz Isfahani , for
i nstance, the i mpl i cati ons of her oath of al l egi ance to the Uni ted States may
be contempl ated. Debate wi thi n and outsi de Parl i ament has hi ghl i ghted the
di fferences between the two States (of whi ch Ms. Isfahani has ci ti zenshi p) on
a number of i ssues such as drone stri kes by the Uni ted States, on Paki stani
terri tory and ci ti zens. There exi st or may arise si mi l ar di fferences between
the two States. Si tuati ons l i ke these do put dual ci ti zens l ike Ms. Isfahani i nto
possi bl e confl i ct of i nterest. On the one hand, she i s commi tted to
per for m[ i ng] her funct i ons i n t he i nt er est of t he sover ei gnt y, i nt egr i t y, sol i dar i t y,
wel l -bei ng and pr osper i t y of Paki st an , even i f that entai l s consequences whi ch
are adverse to the i nterests of the Uni ted States. At that same ti me, she i s al so
expected to r enounce al l al l egi ance and fi del i t y t o Paki stan and, i f the need
ari ses, bear ar ms on behal f of t he U ni t ed St at es agai nst Paki stan. The framers
-: 51 :-
of our Consti tuti on were cl ear enough to have found us a way out of such
confl i ct of i nterest si tuati ons by expressl y speci fyi ng the di squal i fi cati on
stated i n Arti cl e 63(1)(c) and thus ensuri ng that there remai n no doubts as to
the undi vi ded l oyal ty of el ected representati ves, towards Paki stan and i ts
honourabl e peopl e.
10. In thi s context we may al so add that Interi or Mi ni ster Mr. A. Rehman
Mal i k was reported to have made a statement that even after our short Order
dated 20.9.2012, there sti ll remai n i n the houses of Parl i ament, persons who
are dual nati onal s. Noti ce was i ssued to Mr. A. Rehman Mal i k after
exami nati on of the transcri pt of hi s statement. He appeared i n Court and
stated that he wi l l task hi s boys i n the Mi ni stry of Interi or who can then
submi t i n Court a l i st of persons i n Parl i ament/ Provi nci al Assembl i es
hol di ng dual ci ti zenshi p. The El ecti on Commi ssi on of Paki stan i s al so i n the
process of gatheri ng i nformati on about such di squal ifi ed persons as has been
reported i n the medi a to ensure adherence to the Consti tuti on. It i s of the
utmost i mportance that acti ons and deci si on-maki ng i n the hi ghest el ected
bodi es are not tai nted and possi bl y rendered subject to consti tuti onal
chal l enge, on account of the presence of di squal i fi ed persons i n such el ected
bodi es.
11. We are aware that the questi on of the el igi bi l i ty of dual ci ti zens for
hol di ng offi ce as publ i c representati ves has been deal t wi th somewhat
di fferentl y by the Consti tuti ons of other countri es. In I ndia, the very act of
hol di ng dual nati onal i ty i s consti tuti onal l y barred. The Indi an Consti tuti on
expl i ci tl y states: no per son shal l be a ci t i zen of I ndi a i f he has vol unt ar i l y
acqui r ed t he ci t i zenshi p of any for ei gn St at e (Arti cl e 9, Consti tuti on of the
Republ i c of Indi a, 1950). Si nce no Indi an ci tizen can be a dual ci ti zen, dual
ci ti zens are al so precl uded from hol di ng el ected offi ce. It may be noted that
-: 52 :-
up unti l the Paki stan Ci ti zenshi p (Amendment) Act, 1972, the l aw i n
Paki stan al so di d not al l ow for hol di ng dual ci ti zenshi p. It i s for thi s reason
the Consti tuti ons of 1956 and 1962 di d not contai n any express
di squal ifi cati on for dual ci ti zens becomi ng parl i amentari ans because there
were no dual ci ti zens permi tted under l aw. Permi ssi on for hol di ng dual
ci ti zenshi p was l egall y granted i n 1972 through the above-menti oned statute.
The Consti tuti on of 1973, therefore, contai ned Arti cl e 63(1)(c) to ensure that
ci ti zens of Paki stan who acqui re dual ci ti zenshi p, donot si t i n Parl i ament.
The wi sdom of the framers of the Consti tuti on i s founded on the
requi rement of absol ute and undi l uted l oyal ty to Paki stan as a quali fi cati on
for havi ng the pri vil ege of bei ng a chosen representati ve of the honourabl e
peopl e of Paki stan. In Australia too, any person who i s under any
acknowl edgment of al l egi ance, obedi ence, or adher ence t o a for ei gn power , or i s a
subj ect or a ci t i zen of a for ei gn power i s di squal ifi ed from becomi ng a
Senator or a member of the House of Representati ves (Secti on 44 (i),
Commonweal th of Austral i a Consti tuti on Act). There may be States where
dual ci ti zenshi p wi l l not di squali fy the hol der from bei ng el ected as a
l egi sl ator. Paki stan, however, i s not among such States.
12. The upshot of thi s bri ef over-vi ew of comparati ve consti tuti onal l aw i s
that the framers of the Consti tuti on i n different countri es stri ke a bal ance
between competi ng i nterests i n the l ight of thei r own context. The bal ance
struck by the Consti tuti on of Paki stan i s that i t does not di sall ow dual
ci ti zenshi p, but i t does prohi bi t dual ci ti zens from hol di ng hi gh el ected
offi ce. Anyone famil i ar wi th the tragi c epi sodes of Paki stans hi story would
recogni ze why the framers adopted a careful posi ti on i n thi s matter, and why
thi s i s an emi nentl y reasonabl e posi ti on i n our context.
-: 53 :-
13. To sum up, i t shoul d be cl ear that we do not questi on the ci ti zenshi p
ri ghts of dual ci ti zens under statute, nor does thi s Court seek to i gnore thei r
i nval uabl e servi ces to the nati on. In fact, as noted above, the Court has taken
a number of i ni ti ati ves to ensure the wel l -being of overseas Paki stani s, some
of whom mi ght al so be dual ci ti zens. It i s onl y the pri vi l ege of si tti ng i n
Parl i ament and the Provi nci al Assembl i es and the honour of bei ng deci si on-
makers on behal f of the peopl e of Paki stan whi ch the Consti tuti on, vi de
Arti cl es 63(1)(c) and 113 requi res, be gi ven to persons who are not the
ci ti zens of another State. Thi s i s so because as di scussed, i n vi ew of the
onerous fi duci ary duti es of publ i c representati ves, the Consti tuti on
recogni zes the speci al need to avoi d al l possi bl e confl i ct of i nterest si tuati ons
i n the el ected bodi es of the country.

(Jawwad S. Khawaja)
Judge

. . . . . _ . . . .
=
,
, .
,
. , . . . 20.09.2012 . 1
. - . . . . , .
: . .
.
,
,
, < ' - , - - . _. . , . - , . ' . . ' _ , _. - _. . . - . 2
. : . , . , , . . _. .
' _ - : . < , , . < . , _. . . ' _. . . - . . . , . ' _ 3
. . . _. . , - . : N - . 113 . . _. . . . , . . - ' . (1)(c) 63 . ' .
. _. , . , . ' . ; . . _. . _ . , . ' : . . / . . : . . .
. , _. . . . . ' _ - < , . . . . _ . . : . N , . _. ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . ' . .
: . , - . . . , _. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . (PLD 2002 Lahore 521)
. , _ . ' - < . . _ , , _. . . . . . . . , . . , _. . . . 4
. . . ; . , . . + _ . . , : c . , ' , . . _ : , . _ a .
. . 1951 . . , _. - . . . , . . . , _ . - _. _. . _. .
. . . - . - _. _. , : . : : 14 _ . . . _. - . . . , , : _. . .
. , _ _. . , _. . _. : - _ , . : : _. . . - . . - .
. , . . . . , _. : . _. _. . . : . - , . . . , . . . : . .
. . . . . . . _. : . . , . _ . . . _. < . . ' _. , . . _ . , 5
: . , . . , _ < , _. . . . _. . . , : . _ , . . . _ 80.70 _. < . :
1 Const. P. 5/2012
. , 13 . . . , , _ . ; _. : , . _ . : . . . _. . _. .
: . . : . . _ . - . . _. , . - < . . . . . , _. . : : . . , . . . . .
. . , - . , , . . , . < . . . . < . _. . _. - - . . - _. . . . .
t , _. OPF . _ , ` (CAA) ' . . : (Immigration) _. z _ - - .
- , , ( s u o m o t u ) . . . r . . : . : . . _. . , . . . . . . : : -
.( . H.R.C No 24770-G/2011)
_ . . . . . - . `. .' . .
)

. . - . . ,
.
.
.
. _ . ; , . . . 6
. .
.
. . . : - . - . . . . < , . . 184(3) : _ , a _ . - < . - . - .
, , . . . . : - . . . . , . . , _ : : - , . . , _. . .
.
_.
. , . . 63(1)(c) , - . _. . . . . - . c , : . , , .
. . . - _ .

,
. . . . _. _ - . , . _ , . . . ' . , . _ , : - . _ _ .
: N 63(1)(c) t . . PLD 2011 SC 407 . . . , . , . _ , . . , . , _ i , . : . . . _ - , . : . - . _. _. . , . _ . `
. l . . . . . - : . , .
. . - . . . l . : _. . . - . . . . . , . `. : . . _. : . . , . . . . . 7
_ . - ' _ - . . . . _ . . . . - . _. ,
.
, . . " . . . . | . . . " .
. . : . _ " t . . . . . PLD 2012 SC 132` . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . , . , . _ , . . , . , _ i , . : . . . _ .
| . . , . . | : . . . _ , | . . _ | , . , . _ . . . : . . . . _ . | : _ | . . . . | , _ | , . : . _ | : _ : _ | . - . . _ : _ . , | , .
. . : _ _. . . _ . " . . : . . . . . . _ . | : _ . . . . : _ . ; , . : . _ | , . , : _ . . . . | : , _
. . . , , _ : . . _
. l , . l _
. .
. _. ' . . : . : . , . . . . . . . , . . .
2 Const. P. 5/2012
. . _ .
, . . . , . : . . . _. : : , . , , : . . . . . . . . . . . -
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.

- , . - : 8
. . : . . . , . . . - .
.
,
,
, . _ _ _. . - _. . . . , . _ . . . 1 . _. . .
, . . . , . . . : . . . . : . _ . . . . . _ . . . . , , , . _ | , . . - . . _ : _ . . _ . . _ " . . _ . . . `. , . _. .
." , | , _ _
, _. . . , - _. . - . . : . . . , . , . . _. , . 9
. . . _. . , . - _. . . l : . , . : _ , . . . . . : . .
. . . . . . . . . _. . . . . , . : . . . . , . :
. .
- .
.
: . . . . , . . . , , _. . -
| . . , . . : . _ . . . . . , . . | , _ _ | : _ . . _ . , . | . . : , _ _ | , : . _ , _ . , . _ , . . , . . ;
. : . . . , " . , . .
. . . , - . . . , . - . . . - . . . " : _ . . . , . . | , . . . _ . . . : . , _ _
, . . . | : . . . , . . . , . . . _ " .
.
,
- . . . .

.
. . . . . : . . . _. . - . . , .
. : . _ , . . , . : . _ , _ : , . . . _ . , _ , . . _ : _ , . . . . . . . . | . , . | , |
: _ i . _ , | . _ . . . : _ , . . | , _ _ | , , .
. . . . , , : . _. . _. . ' , _. . - _ " | . . . _ . . . . . , . . | , . , . . . _ . . . . : _ . . . , | , . . : , _ _
. . . . . . , . , : . ' _
.
.
.
,
. , . , . . - _. . . . _ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . q - .
_. ' . . .
.
. .

,
. . - _ , _ , . , . . . , _. . . ' .
.
.
. , . . . . :
. _ , . , . . - . . : . - . ' . . . . . . . , . _ . , . _. .
' _ `. . . - 63(1)(c)
- . . . . . :
,
,
. ; , .

.
.
.
.
. .

.
,
.
- . _. , , . , 20/09/2012 , l . 10
_. . . . - , , , - < _ < , _. . .

_ . . , : / . - . . . . - . .
- . . - _. _ . . . _. . . . - . (my boys)" _ < - " . . . , . . : . .
3 Const. P. 5/2012
, _. . . , , . . . - . _ . . `. . _ . . = _ . _. , . : : . . - <
, . , . , : . , . _. . - , . . - < . . _ - < . - : . . . - . ' _
: ' , _ .
. . . - . < . _ , , , . , . : . - . _. . , . :
. .
- .
.
. . . : 11
. , , .
. . . . _. . . . _ . _. . . . . . . , . , , . . - _. . , , . . ,
. . : . - , . . , . . . : , _. . . . : _. . . , . :
. .
- .
.
. : . .
, . . . . . . . | : _ . : . . . : _ . . . . . _ . . . . , . . - . . _ | , , , . _ " . . : . . c _ . . _.
. .
.
_ .
, . . , , . . . , . . . . . , , . , " : . _ . . . _ . | . - . . , _ _
. . . ` _. t . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . _. . _. . . . . _ . . . - . . . . .
-
,

. . . . 63(1)(c) _ . .
' . . : : . . : , _. . . , : - . . . . , . . . - 12
, _. .
.
,

. . ' _ , : , . , - < . . . . . . : . . , . . . : .
t .
.
.

.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 44(i) . ) - . . , _ . _ . . : : . c . .
_. : . . . . . , . . . . . . .
. . _ _. . . . : : . , . , . _ . : . _ . : - _ , . - . . . . 13
, . _. . _ < . , . , , . , _. . . , _. . . - . . c : _ . < -
_. . . . . , . . , _ , . _ . : . : . . . : , , .
4 Const. P. 5/2012

Detail Judgment by Supreme Court of Pakistan in Dual Nationality Case Against Senators and Mnas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Detail Judgment by Supreme Court of Pakistan in Dual Nationality Case Against Senators and Mnas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKI STAN

(Or i gi nal Jur i sdi ct i on)

You might also like