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.
Case Background
Justice Ahmed was a member of the three-judge bench that overturned the November 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 February 8, 2024 general election. The case was heard by a three-judge bench led by Justice Shahid Waheed.
Tampering at Consolidation Stage
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.
ECP’s Constitutional Duty
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.”
Discrepancy Between Forms
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.”
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.
Statutory Framework
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.
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.
RO’s Duties
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.”
“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.”
Criminal Liability
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.”
Constitutional Democracy at Stake
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.”
Final Ruling
“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.”
Analysis: A Landmark Ruling for Electoral Integrity
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a landmark decision for electoral integrity in Pakistan. By declaring that an RO cannot substitute his arithmetic for the sovereign will of the electorate, the court has drawn a clear line: administrative officers are custodians of the vote, not arbiters of it.
The distinction between Forms-45 (polling station results) and Forms-48 (consolidated results) is crucial. The court has held that where Forms-45 are uncontroverted, they must prevail. An RO cannot alter results unless a recount is ordered or a clerical error is transparently corrected.
The observation that tampering at the consolidation stage is “even more perilous than irregularities at the polling station” is significant. Manipulation at the final stage of democratic determination destroys the legitimacy of the entire process.
The court’s warning that electoral functionaries are “trustees of the people’s mandate” and that any deviation from neutrality “imperils the democratic order itself” is a strong rebuke to malafide ROs.
The ruling sets a precedent: courts will not hesitate to overturn results where manipulation is evident. The proper course is not to order a re-poll (a remedy of last resort) but to declare the rightful winner based on verified Forms-45.
For future elections, the message is clear: ROs must act impartially and strictly in accordance with the law. Any deviation will be struck down. The voters’ will, as expressed at the polling station, is sovereign.
