The Supreme Court of Pakistan released its detailed judgment on Monday in the Adil Bazai case, following its December 12, 2024 ruling that had accepted his appeals. The 17-page judgment, authored by Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Ayesha Malik, and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, affirmed Bazai’s status as an independent candidate elected in the February 8, 2024 elections.
The court’s ruling rejected claims by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party regarding Bazai’s alleged defection. Additionally, the Supreme Court directed a civil court to expedite its decision on a pending criminal complaint against Prime Minister Sharif concerning the presentation of what was alleged to be a fake and fabricated consent affidavit.
In Pakistan’s contentious February elections, many candidates ran as independents due to restrictions on the popular opposition party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Bazai, who won his seat as an independent but identifies with PTI, found himself at the center of a power struggle when the ruling party claimed he had joined their ranks through a consent affidavit — a claim he denied.
Details of the case
At the heart of the controversy was a February 18 letter from Prime Minister Sharif to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), claiming Bazai had joined PML-N through a signed affidavit. Two days later, the Sunni Ittehad Council, joined by several PTI lawmakers amid legal troubles during the Feb. 8 elections, presented its own affidavit claiming Bazai had aligned with them instead.
The ECP sided with Sharif’s party, despite Bazai’s repeated denials of ever joining them. In court testimony, Bazai explained he was actually affiliated with former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party but had been forced to run as an independent in February’s elections due to legal restrictions on that party.
The dispute intensified in November when the ECP stripped Bazai of his parliament seat after Sharif’s party formally accused him of defection — a serious charge in Pakistani politics that can result in disqualification from office.
The NA Secretariat’s letter to he Secretary of the Election Commission, November 1, 2024.
NA Secretariat
They pointed to an affidavit purportedly signed by Bazai joining PML-N, his decision to sit with opposition lawmakers and his abstention from voting on crucial government legislation, including a finance bill and constitutional amendment.
This prompted Bazai to file an appeal to the Supreme Court and a criminal complaint alleging document forgery to a civil court.
Evidence shows PML-N’s affidavit was false
In the judgment, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah examined two conflicting affidavits. The first was a disputed PML-N consent affidavit dated February 16, 2024. The second was Adil Bazai’s SIC affidavit submitted to the ECP on February 20, 2024, which contained both his thumb impressions and signatures.
At the outset, Justice Shah noted the discrepancy in thumb impressions and signatures, and that the submission of this second affidavit implicitly negated the existence of any prior consent affidavit.
Several pieces of evidence challenged the authenticity of the PML-N affidavit, the court noted. During the National Assembly’s first session on February 29, Bazai wore a badge with PTI founder Imran Khan’s photograph while taking his oath and signing the roll of members. The National Assembly’s Bulletin No. 1 (2024) listed Bazai as an independent member at serial No. 254, and official Assembly records through September 27 continued to show him as independent.
Further evidence emerged in November when a Civil Court order suspended the disputed PML-N consent affidavit dated February 16. A subsequent police inquiry report dated November 5 from Quetta’s Civil Lines Station concluded the PML-N affidavit was false and fabricated. The Oath Commissioner, Saeed Ahmad, provided both an affidavit and a statement categorically denying he had ever attested the disputed PML-N document.
The judgment also noted that the PML-N party head could not provide any evidence of Bazai participating as a PML-N member in the National Assembly. Instead, the party head acknowledged in his own declarations that Bazai sits with Sunni Ittehad Council members in the opposition.
Bazai’s membership returned
Justice Shah stated that the ECP’s findings "contradict the weight of evidence on record and are therefore legally unsustainable.” He explained that since Bazai was not found to be a member of PML-N’s Parliamentary Party, both the party head’s declarations about defection and the ECP’s confirmation were without jurisdiction.
"Consequently, these appeals are allowed,” Justice Shah declared. "The impugned orders passed by the Commission are set aside, and the declarations made by PML-N’s party head that the appellant had defected from the said political party are not confirmed.”
As a result, the judgment concluded that Bazai’s "membership of the National Assembly from seat NA-262 is restored as an independent member, not as a member of PML-N’s Parliamentary Party.”
Looking ahead
Justice Ayesha Malik concurred with Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s judgment while providing additional reasoning. She emphasized the importance of examining the ECP’s constitutional role and conduct in defection cases under Article 63A of the Constitution.
Regarding the ECP’s authority, Justice Malik stated that "the constitutional duty of the ECP cannot be considered as an overarching constitutional power vis-à-vis other constitutional provisions and institutions.” She explained that the ECP is constitutionally mandated to be an independent body responsible for conducting free and fair elections and ensuring elected representatives maintain their positions.
"The independence of the ECP is the fundamental safeguard in a democratic system,” Justice Malik emphasized, noting that this independence maintains electoral integrity and ensures the public’s will is properly translated into governance.
She highlighted that "elections are the lifeline to democracy and the ECP is the guarantor of electoral integrity.” The judgment stressed that the ECP must remain impartial and resist political influences. Justice Malik noted that "any leaning of the ECP in favor of the government would compromise the legitimacy of the political system.”
In her concluding remarks, Justice Malik expressed concern that "it is unfortunate that despite clear pronouncements by this Court, the ECP conducts itself in a manner that is not in line with its constitutional duty rather aligned with the notion that they have the constitutional power to disregard other constitutional institutions and the basic right of the vote.”
