Islamabad (Web Desk): The Supreme Court's (SC) constitutional bench has rejected a petition that proposed a rule requiring candidates to win more than 50% of the vote to be declared victorious in elections.
The bench, led by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, and including Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Musarrat Hilali, dismissed the case, declaring it "frivolous," and imposed a fine of Rs20,000 on the petitioner, Muhammad Akram, for bringing the case to court.
During the hearing, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned the legal grounds of the petition, asking which constitutional provision could support the idea that a candidate should need to secure a majority of votes.
He emphasized that election results reflect the votes cast, and it is not within the court's jurisdiction to intervene in cases where citizens choose not to vote.
Justice Ayesha Malik added that the petitioner had not shown any violation of his fundamental rights, nor could he demonstrate that any constitutional provision had been breached.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail pointed out that making such a law was outside the court's remit, as only Parliament has the authority to enact new legislation.
The petitioner, however, argued that his petition was linked to fundamental rights and that Parliament's decisions deeply affect citizens' lives.
In response, Justice Aminuddin Khan made it clear that Parliament does not "decide on life itself." Justice Masarat Hilali remarked that while every citizen has the right to vote, it is their responsibility if they choose not to participate in the election process.
When Justice Mandokhail inquired whether the petitioner had voted in the February 2024 elections, Akram admitted that he had not.
This prompted Justice Jamal Mandokhail to observe that by failing to vote, the petitioner was, in effect, disrespecting the Constitution.
At one point, the petitioner suggested that a much larger fine—Rs. 100 billion—should be imposed to reduce the national debt.
Justice Aminuddin Khan responded sharply, noting that the petitioner would not have the means to pay such an astronomical sum.
In another case, the court heard an appeal regarding a petition seeking to make it mandatory for independent candidates to join political parties.
However, the petitioner, Maulvi Iqbal Haider, appeared via video link and acknowledged that the matter had already been resolved, rendering his petition irrelevant.
The bench swiftly dismissed the plea as a result.
The bench also reviewed the status of over 1,000 petitions challenging the Income Levy Tax Act of 2013.
The lawyer for the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) reported that many parties had not received the necessary legal notices, with roughly 400 addresses being incorrect.
In response, the court directed that notices be published in newspapers to ensure proper notification.
The FBR's lawyer also raised concerns about the admissibility of certain appeals in the case, which the court agreed to address in a future hearing.
The case was adjourned for three weeks.