ROs cannot trump voters will, says SC

Judgment notes law neither condones manipulation nor permits its fruits to endure

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has taken strong exception to returning officers (ROs) altering election results, ruling that an administrative officer 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. Where the true count of votes is evident from uncontroverted Forms-45, duly acknowledged by the ECP, no shadow can be cast upon their authenticity. This Court is not powerless; where the evidence conclusively demonstrates that the appellant secured a lawful majority the proper course is not to direct a re-poll but to declare the appellant duly elected," a 10-page detailed judgement authored by Justice Shakeel Ahmed said.

Justice Ahmed was a member of the three-judge bench that overturned the Nov 24, 2025 Balochistan Election Tribunal's ruling and had ordered the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to notify Pakhtunkhwa National Awami Party's (PNAP) Khushal Khan Kakar as the returned candidate from NA-251 (Sherani-cum-Zhob-cum-Killa Saifullah) for the Feb 8, 2024 general election.

The case was heard by a three-judge bench led by Justice Shahid Waheed.

The judgment noted that the law neither condones manipulation nor permits its fruits to endure. "Tampering at the consolidation stage by the RO is even more perilous than irregularities at the polling station, for it occurs at the final stage of democratic determination. It transforms an administrative officer into a lawful determinant of political destiny, usurping the sovereign will of the electorate."

It further stated that any manipulation at the stage of vote consolidation erodes democratic legitimacy and shakes the foundations of the people's mandate.

The court said that Article 218(3) of the Constitution enjoins upon the ECP the solemn and non-negotiable duty to organize and conduct elections honestly, justly and fairly, and to vigilantly guard against corrupt practices.

"This Constitutional command is not directory, but mandatory."

"We deem it necessary to observe that electoral functionaries are trustees of the people's mandate and custodians of the integrity of the electoral process. Any deviation from neutrality or departure from the statutory framework imperils not merely the outcome of a particular election, but the democratic order itself.

"The discharge of electoral duties demands scrupulous adherence to law, transparency in action, and an unwavering commitment to impartiality, for it is through these principles that public confidence in the electoral process is sustained and the sovereign will of the electorate is preserved."

The judgment noted that when examined from this perspective the position emerging from the record admits of serious ambiguity.

"First, the primary record, namely Forms-45, consistently reflects the Appellant securing the majority of votes at the relevant polling stations. Second, the copies of Form-45 available on the official portal of the ECP corroborate the same figures. Third, it is only in the consolidated statement, namely the Form-48 prepared by the RO, that the figures stand altered and the electoral result changed. In such circumstances, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the alteration was not clerical in nature but substantive in effect, for it changed the electoral mandate."

The court observed that a vote is not a mere mechanical entry in a ledger but the sovereign expression of the people, adding that any alteration at the consolidation stage is not a trivial irregularity but an intrusion into the electorate's will.

It further said that under the Elections Act, 2017, read with Rule 81 of the Election Rules, 2017, the result of the count at each polling station is to be recorded in Form-45, prepared and signed by the presiding officer (PO) immediately after counting, with copies supplied to the polling agents of the candidates.

"Rule 84 of the Election Rules, 2017 provides that on receipt of the count from all the POs of the constituency, the RO shall prepare the provisional consolidated statement 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 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 Election Rules, 2017."

The court said that the purpose of Section 95 of the Act is to ensure a transparent, accurate, and official final tabulation of votes after polling, adding that it governs the consolidation of results by the RO.

The order said that section 95 of the Act ensures that all the polling station results are carefully combined into a single, verified and publicly declared result, making it the decisive administrative step in determining the winner, while still allowing legal challenge afterwards.

"It is not disputed that Forms-45 were prepared and signed at the polling stations immediately after the counting of votes and that copies thereof were supplied to the polling agents of the contesting candidates. Forms-45 produced by the Appellant, as well as those available on the official portal of the ECP, and the result of the recount conducted by TW-2 are consistent with each other. However, the figures reflected in the Form-48 prepared by the RO materially diverge from the vote count recorded in Forms-45 in respect of the polling stations, detailed above. Significantly, the margin of victory declared in Form-48 does not correspond with the count emerging from Forms-45."

The judgement stated that the RO is bound to strict statutory duties, including neutral and transparent conduct of the election.

"He must act as an impartial officer responsible for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. He must simply compile the result from Forms-45 into Form-48. He cannot modify or alter the votes unless a recount is ordered or an obvious clerical or arithmetical mistake is discovered and corrected transparently in accordance with law.

"He must also ensure that the record accurately reflects the votes polled. If the RO deduct votes from a candidate and adds them to another without lawful authority, as happened in the present case, the act constitutes tampering with election results, abuse of statutory process, and violation of election laws. Such conduct has materially affected the election results and undermined the democratic process. In the instant case, we observed that Forms-45 and Form-48 differ substantially; the discrepancy raises a presumption of manipulation.

"The Appellant had a clear lead of 1863 votes, according to Forms-45, and, after alteration in Form-48, his rival/ Respondent was declared the Returned Candidate. This deliberate alteration with election results attracts criminal liability against the concerned staff and officers, 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 his rival/ the Respondent, the RO appears to have exceeded his statutory powers and possibly acted with malafide intent. Such an alteration, which completely reversed the election results, materially affects the outcome of the elections and undermines the integrity of the electoral process."

The judgment stated that "the controversy brought before this court strikes at the very heart of Constitutional democracy and the sanctity of the ballot. In a Constitutional order founded upon representative governance, the legitimacy of public institutions ultimately rests upon the integrity, transparency and credibility of the electoral process. Where doubts arise as to whether the will of the electorate, as expressed at the polling stations, has been faithfully carried through the statutory process of consolidation, the matter assumes significance beyond the fortunes of individual candidates."

It further noted that "the law also distinguishes between corrupt and illegal practices. While illegal practices are prohibited irrespective of mens rea, corrupt practices such as bribery and treating require proof of a corrupt inducement to voters to vote or refrain from voting. Such mens rea may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of the case.

"In such matters, the Court must remain mindful that ordering a fresh election is a remedy of last resort, given the substantial cost, delay, and disruption to representation it entails

"Upon examination of the record, we have no hesitation to conclude that the RO acted beyond lawful authority in altering the arithmetic basis of consolidation. Such an alteration materially affected the result of the election. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The Election Petition filed by the Appellant is accepted. The impugned notification issued in favour of the Respondent/returned candidate, which cannot be sustained, is set aside. Based on verified Forms-45, forming part of the record, the Appellant, having secured the majority of valid votes, is declared as the returned candidate from the Constituency NA-251, Sherani-cum-Zhob-cum-Killa Saifullah. The ECP shall issue a Notification in this regard. Whereas, the Civil Appeal No. 1152/2025 filed by the Respondent is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the judgment dated 24.11.2025 of the Election Tribunal-III, Balochistan, Quetta."