The judgment notes that the law does not tolerate manipulation and does not allow its fruits to persist
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court strongly objected to returning officers changing election results, ruling that an administrative agent cannot substitute its calculation for the sovereign will of the electorate.
“An administrative officer cannot be permitted to substitute his calculation for the sovereign will of the electorate. When the true vote count is evident from undisputed Form 45s, duly recognized by the ECP, no shadow can be cast on their authenticity. This Court is not helpless; when the evidence conclusively demonstrates that the appellant has obtained a legal majority, the correct course is not to order a fresh ballot but to declare the appellant duly elected”, a detailed 10-page document. said the judgment written by Justice Shakeel Ahmed.
Justice Ahmed was a member of the three-judge bench that overturned the Balochistan Election Tribunal’s November 24, 2025 decision and had directed the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to notify Khushal Khan Kakar of the Pakhtunkhwa National Awami Party (PNAP) as the returned candidate of NA-251 (Sherani-cum-Zhob-cum-Killa Saifullah) for the February 8, 2024 general elections. election.
The case was heard by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed.
The judgment notes that the law does not tolerate manipulation nor does it allow its fruits to persist. “RO’s falsification of the consolidation phase is even more perilous than polling station irregularities, because it occurs at the final stage of democratic determination. It transforms an administrative functionary into a legitimate determiner of political destiny, usurping the sovereign will of the electorate.”
He further said that any manipulation at the stage of vote consolidation erodes democratic legitimacy and shakes the foundations of the people’s mandate.
The court said that Article 218 (3) of the Constitution imposes on the ECP a solemn and non-negotiable duty to organize and conduct elections in an honest, fair and equitable manner, and to vigilantly guard against corrupt practices.
“This constitutional command is not directive, but obligatory.”
“We find it necessary to observe that election officials are the custodians of the mandate of the people and the guardians of the integrity of the electoral process. Any deviation from neutrality or any deviation from the statutory framework jeopardizes not only the outcome of a particular election, but the democratic order itself.
“The exercise of electoral functions requires scrupulous respect for the law, transparency in action and an unwavering commitment to impartiality, because it is through these principles that public confidence in the electoral process is maintained and the sovereign will of the electorate is preserved.”
The judgment noted that, examined from this angle, the position emerging from the file admits of serious ambiguity.
“First, the primary record i.e. Forms-45 consistently shows that the appellant obtained majority of votes in the concerned polling stations. Secondly, the copies of Form-45 available on the official ECP portal corroborate the same figures. Thirdly, it is only in the consolidated declaration i.e. Form-48 prepared by the RO that the figures are altered and the election result changed. In such circumstances the conclusion becomes inevitable that the modification was not of a material nature but of substance in fact, because it changed the electoral mandate.
The court observed that a vote is not a mere mechanical entry in a ledger but the sovereign expression of the people, adding that any alteration at the consolidation stage is not a trivial irregularity but an intrusion into the will of the electorate.
It further said that under the Electoral Act, 2017, read with Rule 81 of the Election Rules, 2017, the result of the counting at each polling station shall be recorded in Form 45, prepared and signed by the Presiding Officer (PO) immediately after the counting, with copies provided to the polling agents of the candidates.
“Rule 84 of the Election Rules, 2017 provides that on receipt of the tally of all POs in the constituency, the RO shall prepare the provisional consolidated statement of results for the constituency as required under section 92, in Form 47, then the provisional result shall be announced in accordance with the said section, immediately after the announcement of the provisional results, the RO shall consolidate the final results by following the procedure laid down in section 95 of the Act in Form 48 read with the rules 84-C and 85 of the Election Rules, 2017.”
The court said the purpose of Section 95 of the law is to ensure a transparent, accurate and official tally of votes after the polls, adding that it governs the consolidation of results by the RO.
The order says Section 95 of the law ensures that all polling station results are carefully combined into a single, verified and publicly reported result, making it the decisive administrative step in determining the winner, while allowing for a legal challenge afterwards.
“It is not in dispute that the Forms-45 were prepared and signed at the polling stations immediately after the counting of votes and copies of the same were provided to the election agents of the contesting candidates. The Forms-45 produced by the appellant, as well as those available on the official portal of the ECP, and the result of the recount carried out by TW-2 are consistent with each other. However, the figures reflected in the form-48 prepared by the DS differ materially from the vote count recorded in Forms-45 relating to polling stations, detailed above. Significantly, the margin of victory declared in Form-48 does not match the tally resulting from Forms-45.
The judgment indicates that the DS is bound by strict legal obligations, including the neutral and transparent conduct of the election.
“He must act as an impartial officer responsible for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. He must simply tabulate the result of Form 45 into Form 48. He cannot change or alter the votes unless a recount is ordered or an obvious clerical or arithmetic error is discovered and transparently corrected in accordance with the law.
“He must also ensure that the record accurately reflects the votes cast. If the RO deducts the votes of one candidate and adds them to another without legal authority, as happened in the present case, the act constitutes falsification of the election results, an abuse of legal process and a violation of the electoral laws. Such conduct materially affected the election results and undermined the democratic process. In the present case, we observed that Forms 45 and 48 differ significantly; discrepancy raises a presumption of manipulation.
“The appellant had a clear lead of 1,863 votes, according to Form 45, and, after modification of Form 48, his rival/respondent was declared the returned candidate. This deliberate alteration of the election results gives rise to criminal liability of the staff and officers concerned, under the electoral laws.”
The court noted that “the discrepancy between Forms 45 and 48, in the present case, indicates a serious irregularity. By reducing the appellant’s votes and adding them to those of his rival/respondent, the RO appears to have exceeded his statutory powers and perhaps acted with dishonest intent. Such an amendment, which completely reversed the election results, materially affects the outcome of the election and undermines the integrity of the electoral process. »
The judgment stated that “the controversy brought before this Court strikes at the very heart of constitutional democracy and the sanctity of the ballot. In a constitutional order based on representative governance, the legitimacy of public institutions ultimately rests on the integrity, transparency and credibility of the electoral process.
He further noted that “the law also distinguishes between corrupt and illegal practices. Although illegal practices are prohibited regardless of intentional intent, corrupt practices such as bribery and dealing require proof of corrupt inducement of voters to vote or abstain from voting. Such intentional intent can be inferred from the circumstances of the case.
“In such cases, the Court must bear in mind that ordering new elections is a remedy of last resort, given the substantial cost, delays and disruption to representation that this entails.
“After perusal of the record, we have no hesitation in concluding that the DS acted beyond his legal authority in changing the arithmetic basis of consolidation. Such modification had a material impact on the outcome of the election. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The election petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The impugned notice issued in favor of the respondent/returned candidate, which cannot be sustained, is set aside. On the basis of the verified Form 45, forming part of the record, the appellant, having obtained the majority of valid votes, is declared as the re-elected candidate from Constituency NA-251, Sherani-cum-Zhob-cum-Killa Saifullah The ECP will issue a notification in this regard, considering that the Civil Appeal No. 1152/2025 filed by the respondent is partly allowed insofar as it sets aside the judgment dated 24.11.2025 of the Election Tribunal-III. Balochistan, Quetta.”
