Principle that every nondisclosure or mis-declaration would not be sufficient enough to permanently disqualify a member of the Parliament or a candidate.

 It is now a well settled principle that every nondisclosure or mis-declaration would not be sufficient enough to permanently disqualify a member of the Parliament or a candidate. The purpose and intention needs to be seen behind the nondisclosure or mis-declaration. The returned candidate would be disqualified only when if he/she has dishonestly acquired assets and is hiding them to derive certain benefits. If the non-disclosure or mis-declaration is such that it gives an illegal advantage to a candidate then it would lead to termination of his candidature.

It is well-settled that no man should suffer because of the fault of the court. There is an old maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’, which means that an act of court shall prejudice no man and the same becomes applicable in the present case as the learned fora below were under obligation to do justice with the appellant. This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. In a case, where any undeserved or unfair advantage has been given to a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court (the respondent No. 3 in the present case) and the same requires to be neutralized, the said maxim is to be made applicable.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1399 OF 2019

Shamona Badshah Qaisarani versus Election Tribunal, Multan etc.