Votes are primary evidence of election results: CJP

Top court issued a four-page written judgment regarding dismissal of an appeal against election results in PB-14 Nasirabad, Balochistan

By APP
|
September 26, 2024
CJP Qazi Faez Isa announcing verdict on petitions against Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, on October 11, 2023, in this still taken from a video. — State media

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa has observed in a judgment that cast votes are the primary evidence of election results and what is recorded by a Presiding Officer or a Returning Officer in the requisite forms is not final.

The top court issued a four-page written judgment regarding dismissal of an appeal against election results in PB-14 Nasirabad, Balochistan. The verdict is authored by the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

It said, “The Presiding Officer of each polling station after the closure of elections counts the votes and is then required to prepare Form-45. The Returning Officer after receipt of all the Form-45s from the Presiding Officers calculates the votes and issues Form-47.”

The order said, “The learned Judge of the Tribunal independently examined the case from all angles and attended to the allegations leveled by the appellant and correctly concluded that his allegations were not established, and that the election results were fair. “Therefore, the impugned judgment is upheld and this appeal is dismissed”, it read.

The order said, the winning candidate emerges as victorious having received 1,919 more votes than the appellant.

The court said, “A candidate may request for recounting of the votes, and if such request is allowed, the votes are recounted, after issuance of notice to all the candidates, and recounting takes place in the presence of all those who elect to attend. If there is a dispute in this regard, the actual votes which were cast determine the controversy. However, needless to state, if the seal of the bags/packets are found to be broken or tampered with, the sanctity of votes therein stands compromised. This, however, was not the case of the appellant.”