CPs.2693-2694 of 2018 4 vs. Faiz Mai (PLD 2012 SC 211) wherein this Court held that admission must be categorical, definite and unambiguous in nature and that a mere nondenial of a fact in written statement by the defendant, about a fact which is not specifically pleaded in the plaint, cannot by stretch of any legal principle be construed to be an ‘admission’ in terms of law. As already noted above, there is neither any allegation nor any evidence to show that the petitioner’s sanad was fake. There is also no evidence on the record to indicate the constitutional ingredient of “not honest” in Article 62(1)(f) ibid. Equally, there is nothing to show that the petitioner consciously declared his sanad knowing that it is not equivalent to a graduate or higher degree. 3. Disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution entails a life time bar on eligibility to contest elections as held by this Court in Sami Ullah Baloch vs. Abdul Karim Nousherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405). Lack of honesty of the petitioner appears to have been presumed by the impugned judgments whereas in the context of Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, in the case of Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 1089) this Court has recognised that the element of dishonesty should be present in candidate’s conduct which can be deduced from his overt acts that reflect deliberate false statement, cheatful involvement in the use of unfair means and dishonesty. Operative para therefrom is reproduced herein below: “22. … A person who indulges into unfair means in procuring his educational qualifications and is also found guilty by the Disciplinary Committee, which is the only authority competent to inquire into the matters of such allegations against candidates appearing in the examination of the said University, does not deserve to claim to be an honest, righteous