The ruling indicates that the law does not approve manipulation nor does it allow its fruits to last.
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court has strongly opposed returning officers (ROs) altering election results, ruling that an administrative official cannot substitute his arithmetic for the sovereign will of the electorate.
“An administrative officer cannot be allowed to substitute his arithmetic for the sovereign will of the electorate. When the true vote count is evident from undisputed Form 45s, duly recognized by the ECP, its authenticity cannot be clouded. This Court is not powerless; when the evidence conclusively shows that the appellant obtained a legal majority, the appropriate course is not to order a fresh vote but to declare the appellant duly elected,” the 10-page detailed written judgment said. by Justice Shakeel Ahmed.
Justice Ahmed was a member of the three-judge bench that set aside the Balochistan Election Tribunal ruling of November 24, 2025 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 general elections on February 8, 2025. 2024.
The case was heard by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Shahid Waheed.
The ruling noted that the law does not tolerate manipulation nor does it allow its fruits to endure. “The manipulation of the consolidation stage by the OR is even more dangerous than the irregularities at the polling stations, because it occurs in the final stage of democratic determination. It transforms an administrative official into a legal determinant of political destiny, usurping the sovereign will of the electorate.”
He further stated that any manipulation in the vote consolidation stage erodes democratic legitimacy and shakes the foundations of the people’s mandate.
The court said that Article 218(3) of the Constitution imposes a solemn and non-negotiable duty on the ECP to organize and conduct elections in an honest, fair and equitable manner, and to guard vigilantly against corrupt practices.
“This constitutional mandate is not directive, but mandatory.”
“We consider it necessary to note that electoral officials are repositories of the people’s mandate and custodians of the integrity of the electoral process. Any deviation from neutrality or deviation from the statutory framework endangers not only the result of a particular election, but the democratic order itself.
“The performance of electoral duties requires scrupulous compliance with 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 sustained and the sovereign will of the electorate is preserved.”
The ruling noted that when examined from this perspective, the position that emerges from the record admits of serious ambiguity.
“Firstly, the primary record, namely Forms-45, consistently reflects that the Appellant secured majority votes in the relevant 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 return, namely Form-48 prepared by the RO, that the figures are altered and the election result changed. In such circumstances, the conclusion becomes inescapable that “The alteration was not of an administrative nature but rather substantive in effect, since it changed the electoral mandate.”
The court observed that a vote is not a mere mechanical entry in a book of accounts but the sovereign expression of the people, adding that any alteration in the consolidation stage is not a trivial irregularity but an intrusion into the will of the electorate.
He further said that as per the Election Act, 2017, read with Rule 81 of the Election Rules, 2017, the result of counting at each polling station must be recorded in Form-45, prepared and signed by the President (PO) immediately after counting, with copies given to the election agents of the candidates.
“Rule 84 of the Election Rules, 2017 provides that on receipt of the count of all the POs of the constituency, the RO shall prepare the provisional consolidated declaration of results for the constituency as required under Section 92, in Form-47, and then the provisional result is announced in terms of the said Section, immediately after the announcement of the provisional results, the RO consolidates the final results following the procedure provided under Section 95 of the Act in Form-48 read with Rules 84-C and 85 of the Electoral Regulations, 2017.”
The court said the purpose of Section 95 of the Act is to ensure a transparent, accurate and official final tabulation of votes after voting, adding that it governs the consolidation of results by the RO.
The order said that Article 95 of the law ensures that all electoral college results are carefully combined into a single, verified and publicly declared result, making it the decisive administrative step in determining the winner, while allowing for subsequent legal challenges.
“It is not in dispute that the Forms-45 were prepared and signed at the polling stations immediately after the counting of votes and that copies of the same were given to the polling 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 RO differ materially from the vote count recorded in Forms-45 with respect to electoral colleges, detailed above. Significantly, the margin of victory declared in Form-48 does not correspond to the count emerging from Forms-45.”
The ruling established that the RO is obliged to comply with strict legal obligations, including holding neutral and transparent elections.
“You must act as an impartial official responsible for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. You must simply compile the result of Forms 45 into Form 48. You cannot modify or alter votes unless a recount is ordered or an obvious administrative or arithmetic error is transparently discovered and corrected in accordance with the law.
“You must also ensure that the record accurately reflects the votes polled. If the RO deducts votes from one candidate and adds them to another without legal authorization, as occurred in the present case, the act constitutes manipulation of electoral results, abuse of the legal process and violation of electoral laws. Such conduct has materially affected the electoral results and undermined the democratic process. In the present case, we note that Forms-45 and Form-48 differ substantially; the discrepancy raises a presumption of manipulation.
“The appellant had a clear lead of 1863 votes, as per Form-45, and after amendment in Form-48, his rival/respondent was declared a returned candidate. This deliberate alteration of the election results attracts criminal liability against the staff and officials involved, under the election laws.”
The court noted that “the discrepancy between Forms-45 and Form-48, in the present case, indicates a serious irregularity. By reducing the votes of the Appellant and adding them to those of his rival/Respondent, the RO appears to have exceeded his legal powers and possibly acted with mala fide intentions. Such alteration, which completely reversed the election results, materially affects the outcome of the elections and undermines the integrity of the electoral process.”
The ruling stated that “the controversy brought before this court strikes at the very heart of constitutional democracy and the sanctity of the vote. In a constitutional order based on representative government, the legitimacy of public institutions rests ultimately on the integrity, transparency and credibility of the electoral process. When doubts arise about whether the will of the electorate, expressed in the electoral colleges, has been faithfully carried through the legal process of consolidation, the matter takes on importance beyond the fate of individual candidates.”
He further noted that “the law also distinguishes between corrupt and illegal practices. While illegal practices are prohibited regardless of mens rea, corrupt practices such as bribery and dealing require proof of a corrupt incentive to voters to vote or abstain from voting. Such mens rea can be inferred from the circumstances of the case.
“In such matters, the Court must bear in mind that ordering a new election is a last resort, given the substantial cost, delay and disruption of representation it entails.
“On examination of the record, we have no hesitation in concluding that the RO acted beyond legal authority in altering the arithmetic basis of consolidation. Such alteration materially affected 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 notification issued in favor of the Respondent/returned candidate, which cannot be sustained, is set aside. Based on the verified Forms-45, which form part of the record On record, the appellant, having obtained majority of valid votes, is declared re-elected candidate from constituency NA-251, Sherani-cum-Zhob-cum-Killa Saifullah. The ECP will issue a notice in this regard, Whereas, the civil appeal No. 1152/2025 filed by the respondent is partially allowed to the extent that the judgment dated 24.11.2025 of the Balochistan Election Tribunal is set aside. Quetta.”
