Find a Lawyer

(On appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 24th September, 1980, in Writ Petition No. 9989 of 1980).

--S. 19-Right of vote-Contention that all candidates having themselves applied to Presiding Officer for excluding votes of women they could not go against it and file a petition before Election Tribunal on such ground-Held: Depriving a voter of his vote-Both against law and public policy-Agreement against public policy and law - Void ab initio Candidate possesses no right to deprive a voter of his right to vote nor Presiding Officer empowered to accept agreement between candidates and to disenfranchise women voters.- [Agreement].

Shamim Abbas Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1980.

MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.

-The elections in Electoral Unit No. 25, Union Council, Peelo Wance, Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha, were held on 25-9-79. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 12 to 14 were declared elected. Sometimes after the polling started all the contesting candidates applied to the Presiding Officer stating that they do not want the ladies of the locality to cast their votes for them and so they should not be allowed to vote and votes of those women who had already cast them should not be counted. The Presiding Officer agreed and the votes of ladies cast in the election were treated as spoiled ballot papers and not taken into account for deciding the result of the election.

2. Respondents Nos. 2 to 11 filed an election petition for setting aside the election on the ground that there was hooliganism during the poll which bad to be suspended several times and women were riot allowed to vote.

3. On 26-8-80 the Tribunal set aside the election on the ground that women voters were not allowed to cast their votes. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 9989/80 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed on 24-9-80. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.

4. It is contended that the Presiding Officer had acted rightly because no candidate can be compelled to accept a vote from a particular voter. This submission has only the merit of ingenuity. The voter whose name appears on the electoral roll has a right to cast his vote for any candidate that he liked. The candidate has no right to deprive him of his right to vote or to say that he does not accept his vote. The Presiding Officer had, therefore, no power to accept the agreement between the candidates and to disenfranchise the women voters.

5. It has been further submitted that since all the candidates had themselves applied to the Presiding Officer for excluding the votes of women, some of them could not go against it and file a petition before the election Tribunal on that very ground.

6. Any agreement which is against public policy and the law is ab initio void. Depriving a voter of his vote is both against the law and public policy.

7. This petition has no merit and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.