ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the suspension of a sentence awarded to an elec­tion candidate has no impact on his/her dis­qualification to contest the elections.

A three-judge SC bench that heard the ap­peal in October last year ruled today that the suspension of a sentence would not make an election candidate eligible to contest the polls.

The court issued its verdict on an appeal filed by PML-N’s Gujrat leader Nasir Mehm­ood and another candidate, who had chal­lenged a 2015 Lahore High Court order that ruled them ineligible to contest the elections for the chairman and vice-chairman of Union Council 3, Gujrat Municipal Corporation.

The judgment authored by Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan stated that the suspension of sentence would have no consequence on the convic­tion of the appellants for the purposes of being qualified to contest either the local bodies elections or the elections for the Leg­islative Assemblies.

Interpreting clauses of Article 63 of the Constitution and the Punjab Local Govern­ment Act, 2013, the apex court clarified that the portion of sentence actually served by a candidate is of no relevance and their disqualification is attracted on the basis of conviction and sentence awarded as op­posed to served.

The appeal was subsequently dismissed.


The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a re­view petition filed by former lower court em­ployee Ahtisham-ul-Haq seeking restoration of job.

Ahtisham-ul-Haq was working in Civil Court Kharian as Record Keeper and Services Tribunal terminated his employment over leakage of State documents.

The Supreme Court also maintained the Services Tribunal ordered. Later, the peti­tioner filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against its orders.

A three-member Bench of the court headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Umar Ata Bandial dismissed the re­view appeal and remarked that it was not a matter of basic rights so the court had already rejected an appeal in this regard.

During the course of proceedings, the Chief Justice observed that the petitioner had also changed his counsel.

According to the law, the lawyer who will appear in the first case, the same lawyer will also appear in the review appeal so that no other lawyer could raise false hope for the petitioners in the review petitions, he added.

The counsel for the petitioner said that his client could not submit documents before the Sessions Judge due to strike.

The Chief Justice remarked that lawyers would be on strike not judges.

The law makes its own way, whenever, such matters surfaces, he added.

The court after hearing arguments dis­missed the review petition and remarked that it was not a matter of basic rights.